Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)P. Mohanan Pillai vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 23 February, 2007
19. In view of the above facts a reasonable inference can be
drawn that there was a favoritism, as such, which was resorted to by the
Selection Committee and the power was misused by the selecting
authority for serving an unauthorized purpose and there was malice in
law and the petitioner is liable to be appointed. Reliance can be placed
upon P. Mohanan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & others 2007 (3) SCR 876
wherein the posts of Watchman/Messenger/Attendant had fallen vacant
27 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 :::
CWP-23737-2011 -28-
and the appellant had stood first in the written examination. It was
noticed that a policy decision was taken to call 36 candidates which were
3 times the number of 12 posts which had been advertised. Thereafter, the
minimum qualifications had been reduced to 46 marks and 11 more
persons were permitted to appear in the interview. Resultantly, the zone
of consideration had been enlarged from 1:3 to 1:4, which was
questioned and why the cut-off marks were also lowered and it was held
that the decision taken smacked of arbitrariness and the selection of
respondents No.4 & 5 was set aside and direction was given to appoint
the appellant by observing as under:
Manager Govt. Branch Press &. Anr vs D. B. Belliawpa on 30 November, 1978
When a power is exercised for an
unauthorized purpose, the same would amount to malice in
law [ See The Manager, Govt. Branch Press and Another v.
D.B. Belliappa, AIR 1979 SC 429 : [(1979 (1) SLR 351
(SC)], Punjab State Electricity Board v. Zora Singh and
Others, (2005) 6 SCC 776 and K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P.
and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 581]."
Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd vs Zora Singh & Ors on 11 August, 2005
When a power is exercised for an
unauthorized purpose, the same would amount to malice in
law [ See The Manager, Govt. Branch Press and Another v.
D.B. Belliappa, AIR 1979 SC 429 : [(1979 (1) SLR 351
(SC)], Punjab State Electricity Board v. Zora Singh and
Others, (2005) 6 SCC 776 and K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P.
and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 581]."
Ashok Kumar Sanyal & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 7 January, 2016
respondents and therefore, the vacancies are available, as such. The
argument raised that the petitioner had participated in the selection
process and now is not allowed to challenge the said process, is without
any basis and therefore, reliance placed upon Ashok Kumar & another
Vs. State of Bihar & others 2017 (4) SCC 357 would be of not much
avail to the State. In the said case, the candidates were well aware that
the interview was carrying 10 marks and they proceeded taking part in
the said process and therefore, it was held that it was not open for them to
challenge the said criteria. The petitioner herein is not challenging the
criteria, as such, but the manner of awarding of marks, as noticed above
and has been successful in demonstrating the prejudice which has been
caused to him.
Kunal Sharma vs Union Of India &N; Anr on 13 March, 2015
In similar circumstances, the Division Bench allowed the
appeal bearing LPA-555-2015 titled Kunal Sharma Vs. Union of India &
others, on 18.10.2016, on the ground that there was no record of the
awarding of the marks in the head of interview and on account of the
record missing the desirability of the selection was doubted.
1