Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.30 seconds)
Sumit Kumar Saini S/O Niranjan Lal Saini vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 February, 2022 cites

P. Mohanan Pillai vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 23 February, 2007

30. As regards reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of P.Mohanan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2007 (9) SCC 497, a perusal of the said judgment shows that facts before the Apex Court were in respect of extending the zone of consideration by increasing the ratio while holding interview and the same was not known to the candidates who participated and as such the said judgment is of little assistance to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 348 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September, 1990

31. So far as reliance placed on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1991 SC 537, the said decision is an (Downloaded on 01/02/2022 at 09:54:17 PM) (16 of 17) [CWP Nos.687 & 1486 of 2022] authority about powers of public authorities and there has been no concept of unfettered discretion to a public authority and the power which is possessed by the public authority is only to be used for public good. The said decision is to judge fairness and reasonableness in the State actions and the same is of little assistance to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 1487 - J S Verma - Full Document

Opto Circuit India Ltd. vs Axis Bank on 3 February, 2021

32. The reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners on the case of Opto Circuit India Ltd. Vs. Axis Bank & Ors. reported in 2021 (6) SCC 707, the Apex Court has held that any action taken by the authority is required to be sustained with reference to the contents of the impugned order/communication and the same cannot be justified by improving the same through the contention raised in the objection statement or affidavit filed before the Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 112 - A S Bopanna - Full Document

Dr. Jitendra Singh Nitharwal S/O Mr. ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 10 January, 2022

23. The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that since the State Government, while filing reply in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11583/2021 (Jitendra Singh Nitharwal Vs. State) has taken a specific stand that sacrosanct date is 30.04.2021, the same cannot be changed, this Court is of the view that if the State Government has kept in its mind the object of giving the permissible benefit i.e. maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in National Eligiblity-cum-Entrance Test, as per the Regulation 9(IV) of the Regulations, 2000, the decision of the State Government cannot be termed as arbitrary or dehors any statutory provision.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - A K Gaur - Full Document
1