Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)
K. Aravindakshan vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 8 March, 2000 cites

A.P.State Of Financial Corpn vs C.M. Ashok Raju on 12 July, 1994

However, distinguishing those cases, the Supreme Court has later on in the case of A.P State Financial Corporation v. Ashok Raju (supra), has held that the ratio in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case and other cases in line, is only applicable to those selections where written examination in addition to viva voce test is prescribed. In the selections/promotions where only viva voce test is provided, no limit can be imposed in prescribing the marks for the interview.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 22 - K Singh - Full Document

Anzar Ahmad vs State Of Bihar (Agarwal, J) on 28 October, 1993

Referring to the case of Anzar Ahmed v. State of Bihar (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the High Court was not justified in allocation of 25% for the viva voce test in Anzar Ahmed case (supra). Referring to the earlier decision wherein allocation of 50% marks for interview was held to be high, apex Court has laid down that the said decision appears to have been given in the particular facts of that case and it cannot be said to have laid down a law different from that laid down in the early decisions of this Court. It further says "We are unable to construe the said decision to mean that principles which govern the allocation of marks for interview in a selection based on written and viva voce test would also apply to a selection where no written test is held and the selection is based on interview only."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 74 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

M.S. Bindra vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 1998

In the case of M.S. Bindra v. Union of India and ors., 1999 (2) SLJ 96, the Supreme Court has observed that merely having a particular version cannot be a proof of mala fide. Sufficient material is required to be brought on record. In the instant case neither the DPC members of 1987 or 1991 are made parties in this O.A nor any cogent evidence regarding allegations made against them and the members acting prejudicially against him is adduced by the applicant and therefore, the question of mala fides of the member of the DPC of 1991 does not arise. We find no merit in this allegation and reject this contention of the applicant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 190 - Full Document

Durga Devi & Anr vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 11 April, 1997

13. This decision also answers the submission of Mr. Pathak regarding non prescribing of the norms for the consideration by the DPC members. It was clearly open to the DPC members to lay down their own norms while assessing the merit of each candidate. Furthermore, it is laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Durga Devi v. State of H.P., AIR 1997 SC 2618, that is the function of duly constituted committee to judge comparative merits of the candidates and fitness for the post and the administrative tribunal cannot sit as appellate Court and quash the selection by itself scrutinizing the comparative merits of the candidates. Referring to the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke's reported in AIR 1990 SC 434 the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 98 - K T Thomas - Full Document
1