Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
K.Gayathri vs The General Manager (Marketing ... on 22 April, 2014 cites

G.N. Nayak vs Goa Universityand Ors on 29 January, 2002

8. The learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent has also drawn the attention of this Court to an unreported judgment of this Court dated 4.12.2009 made in W.A.Nos.1573 and 1574 of 2009, wherein similar issue arose for consideration and the Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (NPVJ) as a member taken into consideration the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2002 SC 790 (G.N.Nayak vs. Goa University), AIR 2008 SC 5 (Union of India vs. S.Vinodh Kumar) and (1995) 2 MLJ 458 (DB) (V.Chandran vs. Oil Selection Board) and held that no mala fide being alleged against the respondents, viz., Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and the appellant having been treated like any other candidates, who participated in the interview and in the selection process, cannot turn around and question the selection process and dismissed both the writ appeals. It has been further held in the said decision that since the expert body has evaluated in the process and in the absence of any allegation against the land owners, the said decision cannot be interfered with and it is the submission of the learned standing counsel for the first respondent that the above said cited judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and hence prays for dismissal of these writ appeals.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 52 - R Pal - Full Document

Union Of India & Others vs S. Vinodh Kumar & Others on 18 September, 2007

8. The learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent has also drawn the attention of this Court to an unreported judgment of this Court dated 4.12.2009 made in W.A.Nos.1573 and 1574 of 2009, wherein similar issue arose for consideration and the Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (NPVJ) as a member taken into consideration the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2002 SC 790 (G.N.Nayak vs. Goa University), AIR 2008 SC 5 (Union of India vs. S.Vinodh Kumar) and (1995) 2 MLJ 458 (DB) (V.Chandran vs. Oil Selection Board) and held that no mala fide being alleged against the respondents, viz., Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and the appellant having been treated like any other candidates, who participated in the interview and in the selection process, cannot turn around and question the selection process and dismissed both the writ appeals. It has been further held in the said decision that since the expert body has evaluated in the process and in the absence of any allegation against the land owners, the said decision cannot be interfered with and it is the submission of the learned standing counsel for the first respondent that the above said cited judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and hence prays for dismissal of these writ appeals.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 356 - S B Sinha - Full Document

V. Chandran vs Oil Selection Board And Ors. on 4 August, 1995

8. The learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent has also drawn the attention of this Court to an unreported judgment of this Court dated 4.12.2009 made in W.A.Nos.1573 and 1574 of 2009, wherein similar issue arose for consideration and the Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (NPVJ) as a member taken into consideration the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2002 SC 790 (G.N.Nayak vs. Goa University), AIR 2008 SC 5 (Union of India vs. S.Vinodh Kumar) and (1995) 2 MLJ 458 (DB) (V.Chandran vs. Oil Selection Board) and held that no mala fide being alleged against the respondents, viz., Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and the appellant having been treated like any other candidates, who participated in the interview and in the selection process, cannot turn around and question the selection process and dismissed both the writ appeals. It has been further held in the said decision that since the expert body has evaluated in the process and in the absence of any allegation against the land owners, the said decision cannot be interfered with and it is the submission of the learned standing counsel for the first respondent that the above said cited judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and hence prays for dismissal of these writ appeals.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Sajeesh Babu K vs N.K.Santhosh & Ors on 19 October, 2012

15. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in 2012 (10) SCALE 546 (Sajeesh Babu K. vs. N.K.Santhosh & Others) has held that the courts would not normally interfere with the evaluation of the selection process which is being done by an expert body unless there being mala fide. It is relevant to extract the paragraphs 15 and 18 of the said judgment which read as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 113 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1