Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.80 seconds)Kumod Kumar & Ors vs The Bihar Staff Selection Commission & ... on 24 June, 2015
25. Thus, the inevitable result would
be, in order to ensure fairness of procedure of
selection, the results which were revised and
22
published pursuant to orders of the learned Single
Judge would call for a further revision in respect
of the four questions as noted in the preceding
paragraphs but it would not follow that as per the
fresh revised results of persons who had already
been selected and appointed and have been
working but who do not make the mark this time
would be disqualified and dismissed. We hold that
this would be highly iniquitous inasmuch as they
are not guilty of any fraud, malpractice but are
mere victims of mistake committed not by them.
We have already noted judgments of the Apex
Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra) and
Vikas Pratap Singh (supra) in these regards but
again that does not end the matter. By change of
answers of these four questions, as noted above,
there may be some persons, who are now found
to have made to the final merit list but were not
selected earlier leaving them out would be
injustice. There would not be many such persons."
H.P.Public Service Commission vs Mukesh Thakur & Anr on 25 May, 2010
48. It appears to us that the decision of the
Supreme Court, in case of Mukesh Thakur (supra), was not
brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Kumod Kumar (supra).
Sahiti & Ors vs Chancellor,Ntr.Univ.Of Health Sc.& ... on 22 October, 2008
51. In our considered view, the decision of the
43
Selection and Appointment Committee to consider the
representations and cure the defect, as pointed out in the
representations, was taken in order to maintain fairness in the
process of selection and, on this ground, the High Court will
not be required to act as expert of experts, in a proceeding
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to consider the
correctness of the wisdom of the Selection Committee. The
observations made by the Supreme Court, in Sahiti vs.
Chancellor, Dr. N T R University of Health Services
(Supra), at Paragraph Nos. 37 and 38, are relevant and,
therefore, extracted hereinbelow:-
The Secretary, West Bengal Council Of ... vs Ayan Das & Ors on 28 September, 2007
The
relevant observations, made in the case of Ayan Das (Supra),
read as under:-
Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth Etc on 17 July, 1984
"9. The permissibility of reassessment
in the absence of statutory provision has been dealt
with by this Court in several cases. The first of such
cases is Maharastra State Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education vs. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27: AIR 1984
SC 1543]. It was observed in the said case that
finality has to be the result of public examination
and, in the absence of statutory provision, the court
cannot direct reassessment/re-examination of
answer scripts."
State Of Bihar & Ors vs Ramdeo Yadav & Ors on 26 February, 1996
53. As has been noted above, the petitioners
have also sought for a direction to lower down the cut-off
marks of screening/preliminary test/preliminary test to 50%.
In any event, this Court cannot issue a writ, in the nature of
writ of mandamus, to lower down the cut-off marks to 50% as
the selection to the post, in question, is governed by Bihar
45
Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951, and Sub-clause (iii) of
Clause (c) of Rule 5 of the Rules requires that ten times the
number of vacancies for appointment should be called for Main
(Written) Examination on the basis of screening/preliminary
test/preliminary test. The said Rules have been framed under
Article 309 of the Constitution of India and are required to
strictly adhered to. This Court, while exercising power of
judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
cannot issue a writ, in the nature of writ of mandamus, to
disobey law. Reference, in this regard, may be made to the
case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Ramdeo Yadav & Ors.
(1996) 3 SCC 493.
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Akshey Lal Pandit vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 8 April, 2011
In support of their above case, reliance has
been placed, on behalf of the petitioners, on a Division Bench
decision of this Court, reported in 2011 (4) PLJR 258
(Akshay Lal Pandit vs. State of Bihar & Others), wherein
this Court, almost in similar circumstance, had directed Bihar
Public Service Commission to lower down the cut-off marks for
the purpose of enabling a candidate to appear in the written
examination. They have also cited previous examples to
contend that in the past also, where the rules required the
number of candidates to appear in the written examination to
21
be approximately ten times of the vacancies, short-listed on
the basis of screening/preliminary test, had been relaxed and
cut-off marks had been lowered down in the matter of
selection for appointment to the post of Additional District
Judge (now, called District Judge - Entry Level).
Section 53A in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
1