Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)
Nishant Kumar & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 February, 2017 cites

(Smt.) Smita Pandurang Dalvi, Of Bombay ... vs Ratnakar Dattatraya Patade, Of Bombay, ... on 26 February, 2002

Apart from the aforesaid decision of the Rajasthan High Court, few other High Courts have also dealt with the issue though not exactly identical one. One of such decisions is by Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in WP(C). No. 4140 of 2013(R) (Prakash P George Vs. High Court of Kerala & ors) in which the issue was for direct recruitment as District and Sessions Judge in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service. In that case also, online applications were invited and registration was to be completed by 4.30 PM on 31st January, 2013. The writ application was allowed and the respondents were directed to register application of the petitioner online by making arrangements in that regard within three days.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1259 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Datar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 1 February, 2017

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon an unreported decision of Rajasthan High Court dated 11.9.2012 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 9170/2012 ( Datar Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr and other analogous cases) at the time of hearing wherein it has been held that the respondents while making recruitment may avail assistance of technology but at the same time a human approach is also required to be kept in mind. The object of holding competitive test is to have best available hand and in this process merit should not be compromised just for the reason that the Patna High Court CWJC No.1779 of 2017 dt.09-02-2017 8/12 mechanical procedure adopted do not support the manual exercise. In the cases, if the human error is rectified with all diligence at earliest possible, a condonation of error is desirable. The total ignorance of such rectification results into hardship and arbitrariness only.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - P Gupta - Full Document

Amit Pal vs Union Public Service Commission on 8 December, 2014

In yet another decision of the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 8393/2014, C.M. No. 19433 - 19434/2014 (Amit Pal Vs. Union Public Service Commission), the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal was assailed before the Division Bench. The Central Administrative Tribunal was approached by the petitioner on the ground that the credit entry made for online fee submission was reversed back and credited back into his account. It was claimed Patna High Court CWJC No.1779 of 2017 dt.09-02-2017 10/12 that the petitioner was completely unaware of later development and when he sought to proceed further for generation of admission ticket, he was denied the same. He consequently represented to the UPSC on 25.7.2014, but he was not treated a candidate in the examination. During the pendency of the proceeding before the CAT, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the preliminary test but his result was directed to be kept in a sealed cover and the CAT ultimately rejected his application by passing impugned order. The Delhi High Court has held finally that the UPSC neither intimated to the petitioner that the application accepted from him during the trial run process did not constitute a real time application and that he was not a candidate, nor, during the period concerned, he was informed that his application submitted online and the Registration ID issued to him, were invalid. Accordingly, the impugned order of CAT was set aside and petitioner was declared successful in preliminary examination.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1