Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.50 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 335 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Madan Lal & Ors vs The State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ors on 6 February, 1995
"In Madan Lal and Ors. vs. State of J and K & Ors.,
(1995) 3 SCC 486, this Court laid down following in
paragraph 9:-
Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986
In the
case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar
Shukla, 1986 Supp SCC 285: (AIR 1986 SC
1043) : (1986 Lab IC 796, it has been clearly laid
down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this
Court that when the petitioner appeared at the
examination without protest and when he found
that he would not succeed in examination he filed
a petition challenging the said examination, the
High Court should not have granted any relief to
such a petitioner."
Vijay Kumar Gehlot And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 23 August, 1996
All other decisions of different Division Benches of
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:09:32 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (102 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
this Court in the cases of Garima Sharma Versus The State of
Rajasthan and Another (Supra), Rajasthan Public Service
Commission Versus Dr. Megha Sharma & Others (Supra),
Khushi Ram Gurjar Versus Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur &
Another (Supra) and Sunita Meena Versus Rajasthan High
Court, Jodhpur & Another (Supra), have followed the decisions
in the case of Dharamveer Tholia and Others Versus State of
Rajasthan and Another (Supra). Those were all cases where
Preliminary Examination was held and the claim was made for
migration of reserve category candidates to Open category and
not a case where the candidates participated in the Main
Examination and appeared in the written examination, being part
of the Main Examination. The scheme of examination in the
present cases clearly reveals that marks obtained in the Main
Examination comprising of the written test and skill test (Typing
Test) are to be aggregated for the purposes of preparing the final
merit list for appointment. Therefore, it is not a case of scrutiny.
The marks obtained by a candidate in the written examination are
going to be added for the purposes of preparing a final merit list.
Shri V. V. Giri vs Dippala Suri Dora And Others on 20 May, 1959
"26. The principle that candidates belonging to any of the
vertical reservation categories are entitled to be selected in
"Open or General Category" is well settled. It is also well
accepted that if such candidates belonging to reserved
categories are entitled to be selected on the basis of their
own merit, their selection cannot be counted against the
quota reserved for the categories for vertical reservation
that they belong. Apart from the extracts from the decisions
of this Court in Indra Sawhney (Supra) and R. K. Sabharwal
(Supra) the observations by the Constitution Bench of this
Court in Shri V. V. Giri vs. D. Susi Dora and Others, AIR
1959 SC 1318, though in the context of election law, are
quite noteworthy: (AIR p.p. 1326-27, para 21-22)
"21. ... In our opinion, the true position is that a
member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe does not forego
his right to seek election to the general seat merely
because he avails himself of the additional concession of
the reserved seat by making the prescribed declaration
for that purpose. The claim of eligibility for the reserved
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:09:32 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (108 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
seat does not exclude the claim for the general seat; it
is an additional claim; and both the claims have to be
decided on the basis that there is one election from the
double-member constituency.
K.A. Nagamani vs Indian Airlines & Ors on 27 March, 2009
9.11 Such consistent view has been taken in the cases of
Dharamveer Tholia and Others Versus State of Rajasthan
and Another (Supra), Garima Sharma Versus The State of
Rajasthan and Another (Supra), Rajasthan Public Service
Commission Versus Dr. Megha Sharma & Others (Supra),
State of Rajasthan & Anr. Versus Hanuman Jat & Others
(Supra), Khushi Ram Gurjar Versus Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur & Another (Supra), Sunita Meena Versus
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Another (Supra) & Deepak
Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & Others (Supra).
Aforesaid decisions have been rendered in the matter of challenge
to the shortlisting category wise after the Preliminary Examination
for the purpose of allowing the candidates to enter into Main
Examination. In all the cases, it has been consistently held that
the rule of migration would apply only at the time of preparation
of final merit list/select list for appointment and not at the
screening stage as the marks are not added while preparing final
merit list.
Ajay Kumar Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 9 August, 2018
However, the aforesaid
decision on principle supports the view taken by the Allahabad
High Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. &
Another Versus Nitin Kumar and Others (Supra), insofar as
preparation of the list of successful candidates after written test in
the Main Examination for the purpose of allowing the candidates in
the next stage of Main Examination is concerned.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Uday Sisode on 17 August, 2018
9.22 The Madhya Predesh High Court in the case of Kishore
Choudhary Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
(Supra) has taken a view which is partly not in accord with
consistent view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Dharamveer Tholia and Others Versus State of
Rajasthan and Another (Supra) and series of decisions insofar
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:09:32 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18846-DB] (112 of 117) [CW-7564/2023]
as preparation of merit list at the stage of Preliminary
Examination/Screening Test is concerned.