Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.28 seconds)Brij Mohan Lal vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 May, 2002
30. It goes without saying that opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 will strictly follow the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) while making fresh selection for appointment to the posts in question.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 234 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Madan Lal & Ors vs The State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ors on 6 February, 1995
Further, reliance has been placed on the case of Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir . In this decision, the Apex Court has held that only because the petitioners did not find themselves to have emerged successful in the result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they had filed the petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. The High Court not have granted any relief to such petitioners.
Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986
26. The next case cited by Learned Counsel for opposite parties is (Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Ku Skukla and Ors.) in which similar proposition has been laid down. In that case the petitioner was not granted any relief as he had appeared in the examination without protest. He had filed the petition only after he perhaps realized that he would not succeed in the examination.
G. Sarana vs University Of Lucknow & Ors on 28 July, 1976
27. Since in the instant matter the constitution of selection Committee is not under challenge, the principle laid down in Dr. G. Saran's case (supra) would not be applicable at all.
Secretary, A.P. Public Service ... vs B. Swapna And Ors on 16 March, 2005
In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, and the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court has come to the conclusion that once selection process was started the norms fixed in the advertisement could not have been changed and if they were liable to be changed then the same should have been published in the like manner in which initial advertisement was published. Non-publication of the norms changed subsequently after starting of the selection process was violative of Article 16 of the Constitution and thus is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is of opinion that the result of selection in respect of those opposite parties who had secured 50% or more marks in the written test and were declared selected should not be disturbed. However, in respect of those opposite parties who had secured less than 50% marks in the written examination, their selection and appointments are liable to be quashed and further a Writ of Mandamus is liable to be issued to the authorities concerned to consider the case of the candidates, who had secured 50% or more marks in the written test and to declare their result after adding viva voce marks to their marks in the written examination, and excluding the marks awarded to them by Selection Committee for length of practice and for academic career since this norm was not their in the advertisement.