Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.37 seconds)
Dr Tejas Mahasukhlal Tank vs Gujarat Public Service Commission Thru ... on 21 February, 2024 cites

Maharashtra State Road Tpt. ... vs Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors on 20 November, 2001

5.3 In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Others vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Others [(2001) 10 SCC 51], it was the recruitment of drivers under the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation by driving test and interview. In respect of marks assigned in the Page 11 of 18 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 22 20:42:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/397/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024 undefined interview, there was a complaint that excessive mark was given by the selection committee. The State Road Transport Corporation applied the Circular of 1996, which was issued long after the last date for receipt of application and further it was done in course of selection process. Circulars of 1980 and 1995, which was of prior point of time, did not speak about the driving test.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 164 - Full Document

K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008

5.4.1 In K. Manjusree (supra), the Supreme Court observed thus, which principle will apply with reverse logic in the facts of the present case, "But what could not have been done was the second change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for the interview. The minimum marks for interview had never been adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier for selection of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade II). In regard to the present selection, the Administrative Committee merely adopted the previous procedure in vogue. The previous procedure as stated above was to apply minimum m arks only for written Page 13 of 18 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 22 20:42:09 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/397/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2024 undefined examination and not for the oral examination. We have referred to the proper interpretation of the earlier resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002 and held that what was adopted on 30.11.2004 was only minimum marks for written examination and not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. We are fortified in this view by several decisions of this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 638 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1