Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)

A.P.Public Service Commission vs Baloji Badhavath & Ors on 8 April, 2009

17. It can be seen that the primary aim of the process is to ensure fairness in competition. Thus, when the examination itself is not a 1 https://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/118/01/0034.pdf https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/14 W.P.No.13332 of 2023 competitive examination and it is only an eligibility test, then, the relative unfairness which is claimed, cannot be on the same footing as that of a competitive examination. TET is a screening test to ensure minimum standard. The relative disadvantage in an eligibility test cannot be elevated to the status of discrimination so as to claim violation of Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution of India and pray for normalization as a matter of right. When it cannot be a matter of right, in the absence of the same being prescribed in the notification, the petitioners cannot claim that the respondents should normalize the marks. The difference between ‘competition’ and attaining ‘basic minimum standards’ is well demarcated. Useful reference can be made in this regard to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Baloji Badhavath and Ors.1 when the same was exposited in the context of reservation, more particularly in paragraph 32. Thus, we are unable to grant any relief to the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 241 - S B Sinha - Full Document

S.Thavamani vs The Teachers Recruitment Board on 2 January, 2023

13. The learned Government Pleader would rely upon the judgment of this Court made in W.P.No.32383 of 2003 (Dr.Vennila Vs. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/14 W.P.No.13332 of 2023 Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (T.N.P.S.C)) for the proposition that authorities would be bound by instructions contained in notification. The learned Government Pleader would further rely upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.29205 of 2022 (S.Thavamani Vs. The Teachers Recruitment Board) for the proposition that after accepting the rules and provisions of the selection, the petitioners cannot now turn around and contest that a different rule should be adopted.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M Dhandapani - Full Document
1