Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.80 seconds)
Sushil Kumar Pandey vs The High Court Of Jharkhand on 1 February, 2024 cites

K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008

19. In these two writ petitions, we are not, however, only concerned with the “midway change of the Rule” Principle. But on that count also, the ratio of the decisions cited by Mr. Gupta are 21 distinguishable. The three Judge Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) had referred to the judgment in the case of Subhas Chandra Marwaha (supra) to express doubt over correctness of the judgment in the case of K. Manjusree (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 638 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

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

14. The petitioners’ main case rests on two planks. First one is that the decision of the Full Court on the administrative side goes 10 contrary to the Recruitment Rules, Regulations and the Terms contained in the advertisement. The second plank of the submissions advanced by the petitioners is that in any event, after the performance of each of the candidate is known and the marks obtained by them in the two forms of the examination are disclosed, it was impermissible for the High Court Administration to introduce fresh cut-off marks. On this point, the authority relied upon by Mr. Dave is a judgment of a Constitution Bench comprising of five Hon’ble Judges of this Court in the case of Sivanandan C.T. & Ors. Vs. High Court of Kerala [(2023) INSC 709)] decided on 12th July, 2023. This judgment narrates the factual background of that case in paragraph ‘7’ thereof and the ratio of this decision would emerge from paragraphs ‘52’ to ‘57’ of the said judgment. These passages from the judgment are quoted below:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 85 - K Joseph - Full Document

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

12. It was, however, contended by Dr Singhvi on behalf of the respondents that since Rule 8 of Part C makes candidates who obtained 45% or more in the competitive examination eligible for appointment, the State Government had no right to introduce a new rule by which they can restrict the appointments to only those who have scored not less than 55%. It is contended that the State Government have acted arbitrarily in fixing 55% as the minimum for selection and this is contrary to the rule referred to above. The argument has no force. Rule 8 is a step in the preparation of a list of eligible candidates with minimum qualifications who may be considered for appointment. The list is prepared in order of merit. The one higher in rank is deemed to be more meritorious than the one who is lower in rank. It could never be said that one who tops the list is equal in merit to the one who is at the bottom of the list. Except that they are all mentioned in one list, each one of them stands on a separate level of competence as compared with another. That is why Rule 17 10(ii), Part C speaks of “selection for appointment”. Even as there is no constraint on the State Government in respect of the number of appointments to be made, there is no constraint on the Government fixing a higher score of marks for the purpose of selection. In a case where appointments are made by selection from a number of eligible candidates it is open to the Government with a view to maintain high standards of competence to fix a score which is much higher than the one required for more eligibility. As shown in the letter of the Chief Secretary already referred to, they fixed a minimum of 55% for selection as they had done on a previous occasion. There is nothing arbitrary in fixing the score of 55% for the purpose of selection, because that was the view of the High Court also previously intimated to the Punjab Government on which the Haryana Government thought fit to act. That the Punjab Government later on fixed a lower score is no reason for the Haryana Government to change their mind.
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

19. In these two writ petitions, we are not, however, only concerned with the “midway change of the Rule” Principle. But on that count also, the ratio of the decisions cited by Mr. Gupta are 21 distinguishable. The three Judge Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) had referred to the judgment in the case of Subhas Chandra Marwaha (supra) to express doubt over correctness of the judgment in the case of K. Manjusree (supra).
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

“27. But what could not have been done was the second change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for the interview. The minimum marks for interview had never been adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier for selection of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade II). In regard to the present selection, the Administrative Committee merely adopted the previous procedure in vogue. The previous procedure as stated above was to apply minimum marks only for written examination and not for the oral examination. We have referred to the proper interpretation of the earlier Resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002 and held that what was adopted on 30.11.2004 was only minimum marks for written examination and not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. We are fortified in this view by several decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer to three of them - P. K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India1, Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India2, and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa3.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 267 - K J Shetty - Full Document
1   2 Next