cites: 191962773

The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Union of India - Act Cites 0 - Cited by 699242

The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Karunesh Kumar on 12 December, 2022

21. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel who opposed the prayers made by the PSC establish the principle that the PSC cannot prescribe the criteria for evaluation of the written examination after the examination is over. The judgment in Karunesh Kumar's case (supra) relied on by the learned counsel does not hold good in this matter.

Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 30 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

P.K. Ramachandra Iyer & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 1983

17. The learned counsel opposing PSC's suggestions relied on a large number of judgments, including P.K. Ramachandra lyer and Others v. Union of India and Others [(1984) 2 SCC 141]; Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3 SCC 721]; Shri Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and Others [(1987) 4 SCC 646]; Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Others v. State of Orissa and Others [(1995) 6 SCC 1]; Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Others [(2001) 10 SCC 51]; State of Punjab and Others v. Manjith Singh and Others [(2003) 11 SCC 559]; Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and Others [(2011) O.P.(KAT).Nos.553/2023, 402/2024 and conn.cases -:36:- 2025:KER:16016 12 SCC 85]; Nutan Kumari v. B. R. A. Bihar University [2023 KHC 6969]; Ankita Thakur v. H. P. Staff Selection Commission [2023 KHC 6988]; Anil Kishore Pandit v. The State of Bihar and Others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 332]; Sushil Kumar Pandey and Others v. High Court of Jharkhand and Another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 117]; Tapas Kumar Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [AIR 2024 SC 1933]; Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Others [2024 SCC Online SC 2698]; Ravidas M. and Another v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others [2009 (2) KHC 10(FB)]; Geethu K.C. (Dr.) v. Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission, Tvm. [2024 (4) KHC 586]; and argued that in any examination, candidates must know about the outcome of the examination, and in anticipation to prepare for the examination, they should know the criteria fixed for elimination or inclusion. It is pointed out that there is no minimum mark prescribed for Part I English, and therefore, the candidates could have very well devoted time to Part II and Part III more competitively to secure high marks. It is submitted that in the O.P.(KAT).Nos.553/2023, 402/2024 and conn.cases -:37:- 2025:KER:16016 absence of a prescription of minimum marks, in the notification or the scheme of examination or in the question paper, any change made thereafter on evaluation criteria is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsels also pointed out that many of the candidates have already been advised by the PSC and have been appointed, and the present attempt of the PSC to cancel the advice is after one year of the date of advice. Therefore, it is hit by the proviso to Rule 3(c), Part II of KS&SSR, 1958. The proviso bars PSC from terminating the service of candidates within one year from the date of such advice. DISCUSSIONS

Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 396 - D A Desai - Full Document

Umesh Chandra Shukla Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 August, 1985

17. The learned counsel opposing PSC's suggestions relied on a large number of judgments, including P.K. Ramachandra lyer and Others v. Union of India and Others [(1984) 2 SCC 141]; Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3 SCC 721]; Shri Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and Others [(1987) 4 SCC 646]; Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Others v. State of Orissa and Others [(1995) 6 SCC 1]; Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Others [(2001) 10 SCC 51]; State of Punjab and Others v. Manjith Singh and Others [(2003) 11 SCC 559]; Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and Others [(2011) O.P.(KAT).Nos.553/2023, 402/2024 and conn.cases -:36:- 2025:KER:16016 12 SCC 85]; Nutan Kumari v. B. R. A. Bihar University [2023 KHC 6969]; Ankita Thakur v. H. P. Staff Selection Commission [2023 KHC 6988]; Anil Kishore Pandit v. The State of Bihar and Others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 332]; Sushil Kumar Pandey and Others v. High Court of Jharkhand and Another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 117]; Tapas Kumar Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [AIR 2024 SC 1933]; Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Others [2024 SCC Online SC 2698]; Ravidas M. and Another v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others [2009 (2) KHC 10(FB)]; Geethu K.C. (Dr.) v. Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission, Tvm. [2024 (4) KHC 586]; and argued that in any examination, candidates must know about the outcome of the examination, and in anticipation to prepare for the examination, they should know the criteria fixed for elimination or inclusion. It is pointed out that there is no minimum mark prescribed for Part I English, and therefore, the candidates could have very well devoted time to Part II and Part III more competitively to secure high marks. It is submitted that in the O.P.(KAT).Nos.553/2023, 402/2024 and conn.cases -:37:- 2025:KER:16016 absence of a prescription of minimum marks, in the notification or the scheme of examination or in the question paper, any change made thereafter on evaluation criteria is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsels also pointed out that many of the candidates have already been advised by the PSC and have been appointed, and the present attempt of the PSC to cancel the advice is after one year of the date of advice. Therefore, it is hit by the proviso to Rule 3(c), Part II of KS&SSR, 1958. The proviso bars PSC from terminating the service of candidates within one year from the date of such advice. DISCUSSIONS

Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 277 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Durgacharan Misra vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 27 August, 1987

17. The learned counsel opposing PSC's suggestions relied on a large number of judgments, including P.K. Ramachandra lyer and Others v. Union of India and Others [(1984) 2 SCC 141]; Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3 SCC 721]; Shri Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and Others [(1987) 4 SCC 646]; Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Others v. State of Orissa and Others [(1995) 6 SCC 1]; Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Others [(2001) 10 SCC 51]; State of Punjab and Others v. Manjith Singh and Others [(2003) 11 SCC 559]; Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and Others [(2011) O.P.(KAT).Nos.553/2023, 402/2024 and conn.cases -:36:- 2025:KER:16016 12 SCC 85]; Nutan Kumari v. B. R. A. Bihar University [2023 KHC 6969]; Ankita Thakur v. H. P. Staff Selection Commission [2023 KHC 6988]; Anil Kishore Pandit v. The State of Bihar and Others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 332]; Sushil Kumar Pandey and Others v. High Court of Jharkhand and Another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 117]; Tapas Kumar Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [AIR 2024 SC 1933]; Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Others [2024 SCC Online SC 2698]; Ravidas M. and Another v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others [2009 (2) KHC 10(FB)]; Geethu K.C. (Dr.) v. Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission, Tvm. [2024 (4) KHC 586]; and argued that in any examination, candidates must know about the outcome of the examination, and in anticipation to prepare for the examination, they should know the criteria fixed for elimination or inclusion. It is pointed out that there is no minimum mark prescribed for Part I English, and therefore, the candidates could have very well devoted time to Part II and Part III more competitively to secure high marks. It is submitted that in the O.P.(KAT).Nos.553/2023, 402/2024 and conn.cases -:37:- 2025:KER:16016 absence of a prescription of minimum marks, in the notification or the scheme of examination or in the question paper, any change made thereafter on evaluation criteria is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsels also pointed out that many of the candidates have already been advised by the PSC and have been appointed, and the present attempt of the PSC to cancel the advice is after one year of the date of advice. Therefore, it is hit by the proviso to Rule 3(c), Part II of KS&SSR, 1958. The proviso bars PSC from terminating the service of candidates within one year from the date of such advice. DISCUSSIONS

Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 267 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Krushna Chandra Sahu (Dr.) And Others vs State Of Orissa And Others on 8 September, 1995

17. The learned counsel opposing PSC's suggestions relied on a large number of judgments, including P.K. Ramachandra lyer and Others v. Union of India and Others [(1984) 2 SCC 141]; Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3 SCC 721]; Shri Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and Others [(1987) 4 SCC 646]; Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Others v. State of Orissa and Others [(1995) 6 SCC 1]; Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Others [(2001) 10 SCC 51]; State of Punjab and Others v. Manjith Singh and Others [(2003) 11 SCC 559]; Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and Others [(2011) O.P.(KAT).Nos.553/2023, 402/2024 and conn.cases -:36:- 2025:KER:16016 12 SCC 85]; Nutan Kumari v. B. R. A. Bihar University [2023 KHC 6969]; Ankita Thakur v. H. P. Staff Selection Commission [2023 KHC 6988]; Anil Kishore Pandit v. The State of Bihar and Others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 332]; Sushil Kumar Pandey and Others v. High Court of Jharkhand and Another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 117]; Tapas Kumar Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [AIR 2024 SC 1933]; Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Others [2024 SCC Online SC 2698]; Ravidas M. and Another v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others [2009 (2) KHC 10(FB)]; Geethu K.C. (Dr.) v. Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission, Tvm. [2024 (4) KHC 586]; and argued that in any examination, candidates must know about the outcome of the examination, and in anticipation to prepare for the examination, they should know the criteria fixed for elimination or inclusion. It is pointed out that there is no minimum mark prescribed for Part I English, and therefore, the candidates could have very well devoted time to Part II and Part III more competitively to secure high marks. It is submitted that in the O.P.(KAT).Nos.553/2023, 402/2024 and conn.cases -:37:- 2025:KER:16016 absence of a prescription of minimum marks, in the notification or the scheme of examination or in the question paper, any change made thereafter on evaluation criteria is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsels also pointed out that many of the candidates have already been advised by the PSC and have been appointed, and the present attempt of the PSC to cancel the advice is after one year of the date of advice. Therefore, it is hit by the proviso to Rule 3(c), Part II of KS&SSR, 1958. The proviso bars PSC from terminating the service of candidates within one year from the date of such advice. DISCUSSIONS

Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 142 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Maharashtra State Road Tpt. ... vs Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors on 20 November, 2001

17. The learned counsel opposing PSC's suggestions relied on a large number of judgments, including P.K. Ramachandra lyer and Others v. Union of India and Others [(1984) 2 SCC 141]; Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3 SCC 721]; Shri Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and Others [(1987) 4 SCC 646]; Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Others v. State of Orissa and Others [(1995) 6 SCC 1]; Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Others [(2001) 10 SCC 51]; State of Punjab and Others v. Manjith Singh and Others [(2003) 11 SCC 559]; Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and Others [(2011) O.P.(KAT).Nos.553/2023, 402/2024 and conn.cases -:36:- 2025:KER:16016 12 SCC 85]; Nutan Kumari v. B. R. A. Bihar University [2023 KHC 6969]; Ankita Thakur v. H. P. Staff Selection Commission [2023 KHC 6988]; Anil Kishore Pandit v. The State of Bihar and Others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 332]; Sushil Kumar Pandey and Others v. High Court of Jharkhand and Another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 117]; Tapas Kumar Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [AIR 2024 SC 1933]; Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Others [2024 SCC Online SC 2698]; Ravidas M. and Another v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others [2009 (2) KHC 10(FB)]; Geethu K.C. (Dr.) v. Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission, Tvm. [2024 (4) KHC 586]; and argued that in any examination, candidates must know about the outcome of the examination, and in anticipation to prepare for the examination, they should know the criteria fixed for elimination or inclusion. It is pointed out that there is no minimum mark prescribed for Part I English, and therefore, the candidates could have very well devoted time to Part II and Part III more competitively to secure high marks. It is submitted that in the O.P.(KAT).Nos.553/2023, 402/2024 and conn.cases -:37:- 2025:KER:16016 absence of a prescription of minimum marks, in the notification or the scheme of examination or in the question paper, any change made thereafter on evaluation criteria is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsels also pointed out that many of the candidates have already been advised by the PSC and have been appointed, and the present attempt of the PSC to cancel the advice is after one year of the date of advice. Therefore, it is hit by the proviso to Rule 3(c), Part II of KS&SSR, 1958. The proviso bars PSC from terminating the service of candidates within one year from the date of such advice. DISCUSSIONS

Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 164 - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Ors vs Manjit Singh And Ors on 16 September, 2003

17. The learned counsel opposing PSC's suggestions relied on a large number of judgments, including P.K. Ramachandra lyer and Others v. Union of India and Others [(1984) 2 SCC 141]; Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3 SCC 721]; Shri Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and Others [(1987) 4 SCC 646]; Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Others v. State of Orissa and Others [(1995) 6 SCC 1]; Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Others [(2001) 10 SCC 51]; State of Punjab and Others v. Manjith Singh and Others [(2003) 11 SCC 559]; Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and Others [(2011) O.P.(KAT).Nos.553/2023, 402/2024 and conn.cases -:36:- 2025:KER:16016 12 SCC 85]; Nutan Kumari v. B. R. A. Bihar University [2023 KHC 6969]; Ankita Thakur v. H. P. Staff Selection Commission [2023 KHC 6988]; Anil Kishore Pandit v. The State of Bihar and Others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 332]; Sushil Kumar Pandey and Others v. High Court of Jharkhand and Another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 117]; Tapas Kumar Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [AIR 2024 SC 1933]; Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Others [2024 SCC Online SC 2698]; Ravidas M. and Another v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others [2009 (2) KHC 10(FB)]; Geethu K.C. (Dr.) v. Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission, Tvm. [2024 (4) KHC 586]; and argued that in any examination, candidates must know about the outcome of the examination, and in anticipation to prepare for the examination, they should know the criteria fixed for elimination or inclusion. It is pointed out that there is no minimum mark prescribed for Part I English, and therefore, the candidates could have very well devoted time to Part II and Part III more competitively to secure high marks. It is submitted that in the O.P.(KAT).Nos.553/2023, 402/2024 and conn.cases -:37:- 2025:KER:16016 absence of a prescription of minimum marks, in the notification or the scheme of examination or in the question paper, any change made thereafter on evaluation criteria is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsels also pointed out that many of the candidates have already been advised by the PSC and have been appointed, and the present attempt of the PSC to cancel the advice is after one year of the date of advice. Therefore, it is hit by the proviso to Rule 3(c), Part II of KS&SSR, 1958. The proviso bars PSC from terminating the service of candidates within one year from the date of such advice. DISCUSSIONS

Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 219 - B Kumar - Full Document

Bedanga Talukdar vs Saifudaullah Khan & Ors on 28 September, 2011

17. The learned counsel opposing PSC's suggestions relied on a large number of judgments, including P.K. Ramachandra lyer and Others v. Union of India and Others [(1984) 2 SCC 141]; Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3 SCC 721]; Shri Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and Others [(1987) 4 SCC 646]; Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Others v. State of Orissa and Others [(1995) 6 SCC 1]; Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Others [(2001) 10 SCC 51]; State of Punjab and Others v. Manjith Singh and Others [(2003) 11 SCC 559]; Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and Others [(2011) O.P.(KAT).Nos.553/2023, 402/2024 and conn.cases -:36:- 2025:KER:16016 12 SCC 85]; Nutan Kumari v. B. R. A. Bihar University [2023 KHC 6969]; Ankita Thakur v. H. P. Staff Selection Commission [2023 KHC 6988]; Anil Kishore Pandit v. The State of Bihar and Others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 332]; Sushil Kumar Pandey and Others v. High Court of Jharkhand and Another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 117]; Tapas Kumar Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [AIR 2024 SC 1933]; Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Others [2024 SCC Online SC 2698]; Ravidas M. and Another v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others [2009 (2) KHC 10(FB)]; Geethu K.C. (Dr.) v. Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission, Tvm. [2024 (4) KHC 586]; and argued that in any examination, candidates must know about the outcome of the examination, and in anticipation to prepare for the examination, they should know the criteria fixed for elimination or inclusion. It is pointed out that there is no minimum mark prescribed for Part I English, and therefore, the candidates could have very well devoted time to Part II and Part III more competitively to secure high marks. It is submitted that in the O.P.(KAT).Nos.553/2023, 402/2024 and conn.cases -:37:- 2025:KER:16016 absence of a prescription of minimum marks, in the notification or the scheme of examination or in the question paper, any change made thereafter on evaluation criteria is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsels also pointed out that many of the candidates have already been advised by the PSC and have been appointed, and the present attempt of the PSC to cancel the advice is after one year of the date of advice. Therefore, it is hit by the proviso to Rule 3(c), Part II of KS&SSR, 1958. The proviso bars PSC from terminating the service of candidates within one year from the date of such advice. DISCUSSIONS

Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 268 - A Kabir - Full Document

Sivanandan C.T. vs High Court Of Kerala on 14 November, 2017

20. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Sivananda C. T. v. High Court of Kerala (2023 (5) KHC 347) deprecated the practice of prescribing cut-off marks for viva voce examination after the conduct of viva voce examination for selection to the post of District Judge.

Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 85 - K Joseph - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results