Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.31 seconds)Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India & Ors vs O. Chakradhar on 19 February, 2002
In this regard, the High Court relied upon
Union of India and Others v. O. Chakradhar (2002) 3 SCC 146 to
hold that it is not necessary to implead all the successful candidates
in the writ petition and therefore, non-impleadment of the successful
candidates would not affect the maintainability of the writ petition.
The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted
that in O. Chakradhar, the entire selection was vitiated due to
misconduct of the selection and in the present case, there is no such
misconduct, fraud or any such other factor which would vitiate the
entire selection. It was submitted that the High Court itself has
upheld the result of the written examination while finding fault with
the further selection only because of the change in the number of
vacancies advertised for each category.
Fida Hussain & Ors vs Moradabad Dev. Authority & Anr on 19 July, 2011
(vii) In view of the judgment in M/s Shenoy and Co.,
Represented by its partner Bele Srinivasa Rao Street,
Bangalore and Others v. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle II,
Bangalore and Others (1985) 2 SCC 512 and Fida Hussain
and others v. Moradabad Development Authority and
Another (2011) 12 SCC 615 and other judgments,
challenging the common judgment only in WP-C No.34196
of 2015 and non-challenge to the other writ petitions, will
not amount to res judicata;
Union Of India & Others vs S. Vinodh Kumar & Others on 18 September, 2007
“59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot
turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the
exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was
reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S.
Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100 ……The Court also referred to the
judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp
SCC 285, where it has been held specifically that when a candidate
appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to
be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the
petition challenging such examination would not arise……..”
K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008
44. As discussed earlier, the case in hand is clearly
distinguishable from K. Manjusree (supra) and Hemani Malhotra
(supra). The diploma holders were wrongly counted against the
vacancies in OBC category; while they could not have been counted
against OBC category and while doing so, a wrongful calculation
had been arrived and the same has to be corrected by counting the
diploma holders against the general category.
R. K. Sabharwal And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 10 February, 1995
30. Reiterating the well-settled principle that the percentage of
reservation has to be worked out in relation to number of posts
which form cadre strength, in R.K. Sabharwal and others v. State of
Punjab and others (1995) 2 SCC 745, the Supreme Court held as
under:-
Madan Mohan Sharma & Anr vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 22 February, 2008
39. The High Court held that after the advertisement dated
22.10.2013, changing the break-up of vacancies would amount to
change of the rules of the game after the commencement of the
selection process which is not permissible. The High Court placed
reliance upon Madan Mohan Sharma and another v. State of
Rajasthan and others (2008) 3 SCC 724. The learned counsel for
the private respondents submitted that changing the vacancies in
different categories is illegal and the same amounts to changing the
rules of the game in the middle of the selection process. In support
of their contention, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents placed reliance upon Hemani Malhotra and K.
Manjusree.
Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors vs Rajasthan High Court & Ors on 20 March, 2013
43. It is also pertinent to note that the proposition of law that rules
of game cannot be changed after the selection has been
commenced itself has been referred for reconsideration by a larger
Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court
and others (2013) 4 SCC 540. While referring the matter to a larger
Bench, in Tej Prakash, the Supreme Court explained the ambit of
the expression changing the rules of the game as under:-
Maharashtra State Road Tpt. ... vs Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors on 20 November, 2001
“11. Those various cases deal with situations where the State sought to
alter (1) the eligibility criteria of the candidates seeking employment, or
(2) the method and manner of making the selection of the suitable
candidates. The latter could be termed as the procedure adopted for the
selection, such as, prescribing minimum cut-off marks to be secured by
the candidates either in the written examination or viva voce as was
done in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512 or the present
case or calling upon the candidates to undergo some test relevant to the
nature of the employment (such as driving test as was in Maharashtra
SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve (2001) 10 SCC 51).