Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.50 seconds)Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986
(ii) In 1986 (Supp) SCC 285 (Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla)
in paragraph 24, the Honourable Supreme Court held thus,
"24. Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition
should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination
without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that
he would not succeed in the examination. The High Court itself has observed that
the setting aside of the results of examinations held in the other districts
would cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there. The same
yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in the district of Kanpur
also. They were not responsible for the conduct of the examination."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Punjab Engineering College Etc. Etc vs Sanjay Gulati And Ors on 20 April, 1983
The principle that the prospectus is binding on all persons
concerned has been laid by the Supreme Court in Punjab Engineering College,
Chandigarh vs. Sanjay Gulati (AIR 1983 Supreme Court 580 = 1983 (96) LW 172
S.N.).
Dr. M. Ashiq Nihmathullah vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu, ... on 8 September, 2005
The same principle
is reiterated in the case of Dr.M.Ashiq Nihmathullah vs. The Government of Tamil
Nadu and others reported in 2005 WLR 697. It is clear that the prospectus is a
piece of information and it is binding on the candidates as well as on the State
including the machinery appointed by it for identifying the candidates for
selection and admission.
Union Of India & Anr vs N. Chandrasekharan & Ors on 29 January, 1998
18. Whether a person accepting the conditions contained in the norms for
selection can challenge the said conditions after participating in selection,
came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the decision reported in
AIR 1998 SC 795 (Union of India and another v. N.Chandrasekharan and others),
wherein in paragraph 13 it is held thus,
"13. We have considered the rival submissions in the light of the facts
presented before us. It is not in dispute that all the candidates were made
aware of the procedure for promotion before they sat for the written test and
before they appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore,
they cannot turn around and contend later when they found they were not selected
by challenging that procedure and contending that the marks prescribed for
interview and confidential reports are disproportionately high and the
authorities cannot fix a minimum to be secured either at interview or in the
assessment on confidential report. ......."
Pt. Parmanand Katara vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 August, 1989
(a) The right of an injured citizen to get immediate medical treatment
is emphasised by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1989 SC 2039
= (1989) 4 SCC 286 (Parmanand Katara v. Union of India) and in paragraphs 7 to
9, it is held as follows,
"7. There can be no second opinion that preservation of human life is of
paramount importance. That is so on account of the fact that once life is lost,
the status quo ante cannot be restored as resurrection is beyond the capacity of
man. The patient whether he be an innocent person or be a criminal liable to
punishment under the laws of the society, it is the obligation of those who are
in charge of the health of the community to preserve life so that the innocent
may be protected and the guilty may be punished. Social laws do not contemplate
death by negligence to tantamount to legal punishment.
Madan Lal & Ors vs The State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ors on 6 February, 1995
(iii) In AIR 1995 SC 1088 = (1995) 3 SCC 486 (Madan Lal v. State of Jammu
& Kashmir), (SCC p.9) it is held thus,
"9. ........ The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted
by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as
well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance
to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not
find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined
performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this
petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance
and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is
not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the
process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly
constituted.
Dr. R. Murali vs Dr. R. Kamalakkannan And Three Others on 1 October, 1999
(iv) The above said decisions of the Supreme Court were followed by the
Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in AIR 2000 MADRAS 174
(R.Murali v. R.Kamalakkannan)(FB) and in paragraph 55, question No.2 was
answered thus,
"Question No.2: We hold that writ petitioners are not entitled to
challenge the selection after having participated in the written examination on
the principle of estoppel."
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoorsamity Of Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 6 May, 1996
(b) Right to get timely medical treatment to persons in need was
considered by the Supreme Court in the decision of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor
Samity v. State of W.B., reported in, (1996) 4 SCC 37 in para 9 which reads as
follows,
"9. The Constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare State at
the federal level as well as at the State level. In a welfare State the primary
duty of the Government is to secure the welfare of the people. Providing
adequate medical facilities for the people is an essential part of the
obligations undertaken by the Government in a welfare State. The Government
discharges this obligation by running hospitals and health centres which provide
medical care to the person seeking to avail of those facilities. Article 21
imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of every
person. Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance. The
government hospitals run by the State and the medical officers employed therein
are duty-bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life. Failure
on the part of a government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a
person in need of such treatment results in violation of his right to life
guaranteed under Article 21. ...."