Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)
Shri Kampher Mark Swer vs State Of Meghalaya And Ors on 10 August, 2015 cites

Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980

8. The second ground of attack must fail for the same reason as the first ground of attack. The rules themselves do not provide for the allocation of marks under different heads at the interview test. The criteria for the interview-test has been laid down by the Rules. lt is for the interviewing body to take a general decision whether to allocate marks under different heads or to award marks in a single lot. The award of marks under different heads may lead to a distorted picture of the candidate on occasions. On the other hand the totality of the impression created by the candidate on the interviewing body may give a more accurate picture of the candidate's personality. It is for the interviewing body to choose the appropriate method of marking at the selection to each service. There cannot be any magic formulae in these matters and courts cannot sit in judgment over the methods of marking employed by interviewing 18 bodies unless, as we said, it is proven or obvious that the method of marking was chosen with oblique motive."
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1343 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

M. Sankaranarayanan Ias vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 11 November, 1992

17. In the case of personal bias, two tests are there: (i) likelihood of bias and (ii) that there is reasonable case of bias. But nevertheless, the opinion of likelihood of bias is that of a reasonable man, at the time the decision under review was made, could well have suspected that the Tribunal would be bias? There is another formula "reasonable suspicion" tests for it is the duty of a reasonable man to make reasonable inquiries, if, after having made his inquiries, he is still left with the impression that there was a real likelihood that the tribunal would be biased against him, is it is the duty of the Court to quash the decision. De Smith observed that the apprehension of a reasonable man who had taken reasonable steps to inform himself of the material facts and "reasonable suspicion" tests look mainly to outward appearances. The 16 inferences of malafide can be drawn only on the basis of factual matrix and not merely on the basis of insinuations, conjectures and surmises. (Ref:- M Sankarannarayan, IAS v. State of Karnataka and others: (1993) 1 SCC 54).
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 101 - M H Kania - Full Document

A. Periakaruppan Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 15 January, 1971

"6. Thus, the written examination assesses the man's intellect and the interview test the man himself and "the twain shall meet" for a proper selection. If both written examination and interview test are to be essential features of proper selection, the question may arise as to the weight to be attached respectively to them. In the case of admission to a college, for instance, where the candidate's personality is yet to develop and it is too early to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance may have to be attached in later life, greater weight has per force to be given to performance in the written examination. The importance to be attached to the interview test must be minimal. That was what was decided by this Court in Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu: (1971) 2 SCR 430:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 81 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Lila Dhar vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 19 August, 1981

"25. ......There can therefore be no doubt that the viva voce test performs a very useful function in assessing personnel characteristics and traits and in fact, tests the man himself and is therefore regarded as an important tool along with the written examination. Now if both written examination and viva voce test are accepted as essential features of proper selection in a given case, the question may arise as to the weight to be attached respectively to them. "In the case of admission to a college for instance", as observed by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Liladhar's case,: Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan : (1982) 1 SCR 320 : (1981) 4 SCC 159 : 1981 SCC (L & S) 588 : AIR 1981 SC 1777 "where the candidate's personality is yet to develop and it is too early to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance may have to be attached in later life, greater weight has perforce to be given to performance in the written examination" and the importance to be attached to the viva voce test in such a case would therefore necessarily be minimal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 295 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Yadav And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc on 10 May, 1985

17. This Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case : Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana : (1985) 4 SCC 417 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 88, aforementioned, found that allocation of 12.2% marks for viva voce test was fair and just and in that view directed that marks allocated for the viva voce test shall not exceed 12.2% of the total marks taken into account for the purpose of selection. Even judged by this standard in the present appeals, the marks allocated for the viva voce test being 25 as against total marks of 240 are less than 12.2% i.e. well within the ambit of direction given. In that case, this Court declined to exercise discretion to set aside the selection made by the HPSC after the lapse of 2 years taking note that the selected candidates had already been appointed to various posts."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 998 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Manak Lal vs Dr. Prem Chand on 6 February, 1957

"10. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a Court of appeal and try to reassess the relevant merits of the candidates concerned who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee 22 cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 255 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1