Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)
Rajeshkumar Punitlal Ray vs D/O Post on 11 July, 2024 cites

Joginder Pal & Ors. Etc vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 23 May, 2014

4(f). The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Joginder Pal'Singh | and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 6 SCC 644 has passed clear direction that where there is possible of making exercise of segregation from tainted to untainted must be done. The respondent did not make any exercise of segregating and cancelled the examination in' whimsical manner. But do not produce: even a single document in respect any illegality committed the applicants. The favour of cause and consequence of impugned order is depriving the service of applicant. The respondent did not comply with the direction passed in SLP No.8642- 8644 of 7017 titled as Monu Tomur and Sidharth Yadav - .
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 79 - A K Sikri - Full Document

S.R. Bommai And Others Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc. on 11 March, 1994

Bombay Bench at Aurangabad vide DB Civil: Writ Petition: No.12117/2016 titled as Prakash g Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors, vide order dated 03.05.2019. It js submitted that one must be mindful to the fact that on a populous country like India, where job opportunities are few and spare, public employment is much 25 > OANo.361/2021 coveted for the youth. Denial of opportunity to get the job after fulfillment of all necessary éxaminations and scrutiny, on vague and wild suspicion must be construed as arbitrary action. It is legitimate expectation of the candidates to get appointment when | - they are selected through a duly organized competition system. it . would be most unfair decision to force such selected candidates to. face examination once again for same post. Somerset Maughm the great writer has rightly said "how little it takes to make or © wreck us."
Supreme Court of India Cites 195 - Cited by 604 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar(And Connected ... on 23 April, 1958

"Afe). The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in: Mohd. Hanit Quareshi and Ors. Vs. State of: Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731 and subsequently followed in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rakesh Kohli and Anr., | (2012) 6 SCC 312 that "while dealing with the meaning and scope of Article 14 and to pass the tests of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) the classification mist be' founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) such differentia must have rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question", :
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 272 - Full Document

State Of M.P vs Rakesh Kohli & Anr on 11 May, 2012

"Afe). The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in: Mohd. Hanit Quareshi and Ors. Vs. State of: Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731 and subsequently followed in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rakesh Kohli and Anr., | (2012) 6 SCC 312 that "while dealing with the meaning and scope of Article 14 and to pass the tests of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) the classification mist be' founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) such differentia must have rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question", :
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 260 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Kishan Prakash Sharma & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 March, 2001

A(g). ' is admitted to the extent that the direction is issued but it has not been given any direction to take declaration of Mother Tongue Marathi, however the aforesaid para has been explained in this respect and the same is reiterated, The respondent come on conclusion on investigation but neither the result nor the investigation report is given. The respondents clearly say (a) that 7 the attestation form filled by the candidates for pre-appointment | activities grossly differ, will be marked as tainted after confirmation from CFSL, but the respondent without coming the 26 OA No,361/2021 result of rst declared tainted which is nothing but glaring example of arbitrariness and colorful exercise of power. No any such instruction is given by Hon'ble High Court at Aurangabad vide DB Civil Writ Petition No.12117/2016 titled as Prakash & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors, vide order dated 03.05,2019 in respect of taking declaration of Mother Tongue for the candidates of other States. It has bean observed at para 46 that the candidate having 'mother tongue Marathi can score well even if itis not 3 subject for | him at SSC level. So, there is comparison for obtaining marks for candidate of Mother tongue Marathi and Marathi ; subject in Marathi. The Hon'ble High Court at Aurangabad in the same judgment at Para 53 states similarly, the vigilance committee reported that 102 candidates from other States have been successful, We find that, it is not a suspicious circumstance. Large number of people from the other states gets attracted to this State for employment and business and they settle here. If the candidates are from other States this fact by itself cannot be a ground of suspicion. It is reported that, 18 candidates have 27 OA No.361/2021 secured more than 60% marks in recruitment, when their record was poor in SSC. These candidates can be' identified and segregated and existence of such small number of candidates cannot be considered as a sample of mass copying and mass leakage. -
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 288 - Full Document

State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014

4(d). The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 17.10.2014 in case of State of U.P & Ors Vs. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava & Ors, CA No.9849/2014 enumerated the legal principles for dealing with the request made. by similarly placed persons in the following terms. The legal principle which emerges from the reading of the aforesaid judgments cited both by the applicants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1005 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1