Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.35 seconds)Hemani Malhotra vs High Court Of Delhi on 3 April, 2008
It
reiterated the principle in Manjusree ( 1 Supra) and Hemani
Malhotra ( 2 Supra), but on the facts of that case it held that the said
principle did not apply.
Rajya Sabha Secretariat & Ors vs Subhash Baloda & Ors on 11 February, 2013
In Rajyasabha Secretariat and others (3 supra),
advertisement was issued by the appellant for appointment of Security
Assistants Grade-II in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Secretariat
specifying additional qualifications of NCC/Sports and Computer
proficiency as desirable. Call letter issued to candidates called for
interview specifically directed them to bring such certificate to
interview and further stated that credit therefor would be given only if
certificates were recognized by AICTE or DOEACC. The Court held
that there was a clear intimation to candidates that credit was to be
given to those certificates as a part of the interview and the
respondents cannot make any grievance that they were taken by
surprise by giving of 7 out of 25 marks for such certificates to the
successful candidates and the process was therefore not arbitrary. It
held that there was no departure from the advertised requirements.
State Of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty on 9 February, 2011
Baloda and others3, State of Orissa and another vs. Mamata
Mohanty4, and Parmender Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana
and others5.
Parmender Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 14 November, 2011
38. This principle was further reinforced by another 3 Judge Bench
of the Supreme Court in Parmender Kumar (5 supra), where the
Court held that once results of a selection to Post Graduate Medical
courses in regard to seats reserved for Doctors belonging to Haryana
Civil Medical Services had been declared and a select list had been
prepared, it was not open to the State Government to alter the terms
13 MSRJ
W.P.Nos.18277 of 2018
and batch.
K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008
It
reiterated the principle in Manjusree ( 1 Supra) and Hemani
Malhotra ( 2 Supra), but on the facts of that case it held that the said
principle did not apply.
P.K. Ramachandra Iyer & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 1983
was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after
the game was played which is impermissible. It followed the
judgments in P.K.Ramachandra Iyer Vs. Union of India7, Umesh
Chandra Shukla Vs. Union of India8 and Durgacharan Misra Vs.
State of Orissa9.
Umesh Chandra Shukla Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 August, 1985
was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after
the game was played which is impermissible. It followed the
judgments in P.K.Ramachandra Iyer Vs. Union of India7, Umesh
Chandra Shukla Vs. Union of India8 and Durgacharan Misra Vs.
State of Orissa9.
Durgacharan Misra vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 27 August, 1987
was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after
the game was played which is impermissible. It followed the
judgments in P.K.Ramachandra Iyer Vs. Union of India7, Umesh
Chandra Shukla Vs. Union of India8 and Durgacharan Misra Vs.
State of Orissa9.
Maharashtra State Road Tpt. ... vs Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors on 20 November, 2001
Quoting its decision in Maharastra SRTC Vs.
Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve10 where it had held that rules of the
game i.e. criteria for selection, cannot be altered by authorities
concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has
commenced, it held that the position in K.Manjusree (1 supra) was
much more serious inasmuch as not only the rules of the game were
changed, but they were changed after the game had been played and
the results of the game were being awaited, and that it was
unacceptable and impermissible.