Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.74 seconds)
Patel Naishadkumar Gopal Krushna vs Gujarat Public Service Commission & 117 on 16 August, 2016 cites

Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors vs Rajasthan High Court & Ors on 20 March, 2013

But at the same time it is to be noticed that in the judgment of Tej Prakash Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 540 (supra), a distinction was drawn in cases where change of rules insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria to that of procedure for selection, as it was Page 22 of 28 HC-NIC Page 22 of 28 Created On Wed Aug 17 02:15:42 IST 2016 C/LPA/244/2016 CAV JUDGMENT held that when change sought is to impose more rigorous scrutiny for selection. The matter was referred to Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In absence of any change in the eligibility criteria for selection, we are of the view that the judgment relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellants would not render any assistance to support their case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 150 - Full Document

Census Commissioner & Ors vs R.Krishamurthy on 7 November, 2014

Further reliance is also placed by the learned Advocate General on a decision in the case of Census Commissioner and others Vs. R. Krishnamurthy, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 796 (supra), in support of his argument that when conscious decision was taken to meet with the peculiar situation that has arisen in larger interest by way of policy which has resulted into amendment of rules, as such the same is not open to strict scrutiny by this Court, as much as no rights of the appellants are infringed. In para 33 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 146 - D Misra - Full Document

Public Service Commission, ... vs Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora & Ors on 3 March, 2014

20. Further, the learned Advocate General, in support of his arguments, has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Page 25 of 28 HC-NIC Page 25 of 28 Created On Wed Aug 17 02:15:42 IST 2016 C/LPA/244/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Nagraj and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in A.I.R. 1985 SC 551 (supra), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that every decision has to be examined on its own merits in order to determine whether action taken is arbitrary or unreasonable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 22 - R P Desai - Full Document

State Of Mp. & Ors vs Mala Banerjee on 17 March, 2015

However, the judgment relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellants in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Mala Banerjee, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 698, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no policy decision can be taken contrary to law, also would not render any assistance in support of the case of the appellants, as much as rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India were already amended and amendment is not the subject matter of challenge. As such the said judgment also would not render any assistance to the appellants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 23 - V Sen - Full Document

Yogesh Yadav vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 August, 2013

19. On the other hand, in the case of Yogesh Yadav Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 623 (supra), when benchmark was fixed, after selection process was commenced, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that such benchmark is permissible in law and it would amount to changing rules of the game mid-way. In para 13 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 55 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Jaipur Development Authority & Ors vs Vijay Kumar Data & Anr on 12 July, 2011

In the judgment in the case of Jaipur Development Authority and others Vs. Vijay Kumar Data and another, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 94 (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that executive actions of Government of India and the State Governments are required to be taken and executed in the name of President or Governor of the State concerned. It appears that decision is pressed into service only to support the plea that though policy decision was taken by the Government to call for candidates equivalent to 25 times of the vacancies from those who are qualified in the preliminary examination, but there is no such written policy for the same, but as much as there is notification dated 10.03.2016, by which decision of the Government is culminated into amendment of the rules on the subject by adding proviso which empowers the respondent- authorities to call for candidates equivalent to 25 times of total number of vacancies. So far as advertisement No.9 of 2014-15 dated 10.06.2014 is concerned such policy also Page 23 of 28 HC-NIC Page 23 of 28 Created On Wed Aug 17 02:15:42 IST 2016 C/LPA/244/2016 CAV JUDGMENT would not render any assistance in support of the case of the appellants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 70 - G S Singhvi - Full Document
1