Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 42 (0.53 seconds)Joginder Pal & Ors. Etc vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 23 May, 2014
41. Similarly, in Joginder Pal and others (supra), the Supreme Court
after referring to its judgment in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon case (supra),
which has been reproduced above, has in paras 39 and 40 has held as
under:-
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Inderpreet Singh Kahlon & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 May, 2006
41. Similarly, in Joginder Pal and others (supra), the Supreme Court
after referring to its judgment in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon case (supra),
which has been reproduced above, has in paras 39 and 40 has held as
under:-
Bihar School Examination Board vs Subhas Chandra Sinha, & Ors on 10 March, 1970
In Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhash
Chandra Sinha and Others [(1970) 1 SCC 648], the court
came to a finding that the high percentage of marks
obtained by the candidates who appeared at the selection
of the centre in question did give rise to a suspicion that
unfair means had been practised and the Board was
justified in investigating the case. While the High Court
held that despite the same, the principles of natural
justice was required to be complied with; this Court
noticed the reports of the experts and came to the
conclusion that the results thereof speaks for themselves.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Union Of India & Ors vs Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu & Anr on 30 July, 2003
56. Yet again in Union of India and Others v. Rajesh
P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and Another [(2003) 7 SCC 285],
this Court observed:
Union Of India vs Anand Kumar Pandey on 18 July, 1994
(c) Anand Kumar Pandey (supra) at paragraph 4.
Union Territory Of Chandigarh vs Dilbagh Singh And Ors on 3 November, 1992
(a) Dilbagh Singh (supra) at paragraph 3
East Coast Railway & Anr vs Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors on 7 July, 2010
In East Coast Railway and another (supra), the Supreme Court
dealing with a case relating to recruitment to the post of Chief Typist,
W.P.(C) No. 2204-2014 & connected matters Page 55 of 96
wherein the Administration cancelled the typing test and fixed a even
date for fresh typing test. The Tribunal justified the cancellation and
issuance of a notification for a fresh test. The High Court in the appeal,
set aside the order of the Tribunal, in a writ petition by those candidates
who were successful in the first test. The High Court directed the
petitioner to proceed with the selection process. The Supreme Court
referring to its earlier judgments has held as under:-