Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)

Awanish Kumar @ Awanish Kumar Shahi vs State Of Bihar on 25 July, 2009

13. The aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court in Dhananjay Malik and Ors. (supra), Manish Kumar Shahi (supra), and Vijendra Kumar Verma (supra) clearly lay down the principle that an unsuccessful candidate, who had gone through the selection process knowing fully well the selection process, is estopped and precluded from questioning the 8 above selection process, the only exception being when the applicant is able to demonstrate lucidly that the action taken by the Selection Committee was not done in good faith and was a result of bias or ulterior motive. It is imperative that the person who alleges malice/malafide/arbitrariness should furnish particulars that would prove the same. Ambiguous reasons unsupported by hard facts cannot lead to a conclusion of malafide or arbitrariness.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 240 - Full Document

Dhananjay Malik & Ors vs State Of Uttaranchal & Ors on 5 March, 2008

13. The aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court in Dhananjay Malik and Ors. (supra), Manish Kumar Shahi (supra), and Vijendra Kumar Verma (supra) clearly lay down the principle that an unsuccessful candidate, who had gone through the selection process knowing fully well the selection process, is estopped and precluded from questioning the 8 above selection process, the only exception being when the applicant is able to demonstrate lucidly that the action taken by the Selection Committee was not done in good faith and was a result of bias or ulterior motive. It is imperative that the person who alleges malice/malafide/arbitrariness should furnish particulars that would prove the same. Ambiguous reasons unsupported by hard facts cannot lead to a conclusion of malafide or arbitrariness.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 526 - H K Sema - Full Document

Virendra Kumar Verma vs Dr. Ayyaj Fakir Tamboli 20 Tpcr/3/2019 ... on 14 March, 2019

13. The aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court in Dhananjay Malik and Ors. (supra), Manish Kumar Shahi (supra), and Vijendra Kumar Verma (supra) clearly lay down the principle that an unsuccessful candidate, who had gone through the selection process knowing fully well the selection process, is estopped and precluded from questioning the 8 above selection process, the only exception being when the applicant is able to demonstrate lucidly that the action taken by the Selection Committee was not done in good faith and was a result of bias or ulterior motive. It is imperative that the person who alleges malice/malafide/arbitrariness should furnish particulars that would prove the same. Ambiguous reasons unsupported by hard facts cannot lead to a conclusion of malafide or arbitrariness.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 65 - S Agrawal - Full Document
1