Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.38 seconds)Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors vs Anil Joshi & Ors on 3 April, 2013
In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC
309, candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in
the State of Uttrakhand participated in a written examination held in
pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had
cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised any objection
to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a
chance of selection, it was held that the respondents were disentitled
to seek relief under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived
their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection.
Madras Inst.Of Dev. Studies & Anr vs K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors on 20 August, 2015
selection cannot be challenged by an unsuccessful candidate by
pointing to certain irregularities here and there in the process of which
he was aware, once the result is not to his liking. Relief, in such a
case, is to be declined by applying the principles of estoppel,
of
acquiescence and/or waiver. Reference in this regard can conveniently
be made to the two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
rt
Madras Institute of Development Studies and another vs. K.
Sivasubramaniyan and others, (2016) 1 SCC 454, wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:
G. Sarana vs University Of Lucknow & Ors on 28 July, 1976
In Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3
SCC 585, a similar question came for consideration before a three
Judges Bench of this Court where the fact was that the petitioner had
applied to the post of Professor of Athropology in the University of
Lucknow. After having appeared before the Selection Committee but on
his failure to get appointed, the petitioner rushed to the High Court
pleading bias against him of the three experts in the Selection
Committee consisting of five members. He also alleged doubt in the
constitution of the Committee. Rejecting the contention, the Court held:
Manak Lal vs Dr. Prem Chand on 6 February, 1957
(SCC P. 591, para 15) "15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in
the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or
real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the
relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the
time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution
of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared
before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable
recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to
turn round and question the constitution of the committee. This view
gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal vs. Prem
Chand Singhvi, AIR 1957 SC 425 where in more or less similar
circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the
identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:01:50 :::CIS
8
bar of waiver against him. The following observations made therein are
worth quoting: (AIR p.432, para 9) '9. ....It seems clear that the appellant
wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal
which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with
.
Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986
In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh
Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC 285, it has been clearly laid down by a
Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner
appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he
would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the
said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to
such a petitioner."
Awanish Kumar @ Awanish Kumar Shahi vs State Of Bihar on 25 July, 2009
In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576,
this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments
and observed: (SCC p. 584, para 16) "16. We also agree with the High
Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:01:50 :::CIS
9
fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce
test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of
selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list,
he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The
.
Ashok Kumar Jha & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 September, 2017
In Ashok Kumar and another vs. State of Bihar and
others (2017) 4 SCC 357, a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as under:
Chandra Prakash Tiwari And Ors vs Shakuntala Shukla And Ors on 9 May, 2002
In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, this
Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:01:50 :::CIS
10
examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not
successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of
entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise
where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot
.
Union Of India & Others vs S. Vinodh Kumar & Others on 18 September, 2007
In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100,
this Court held that :