Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.30 seconds)Hc Pradeep Kumar Rai & Ors vs Dinesh Kumar Pandey & Ors on 11 May, 2015
In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey[12], this Court held that : "Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared.
Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors vs Anil Joshi & Ors on 3 April, 2013
16. Thus, once the conduct of the petitioner is seen in the context of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, it is apparent that the petitioner willingly participated in the examination but when he was declared failed he has challenged the process, which challenge is legally impermissible.
Chandra Prakash Tiwari And Ors vs Shakuntala Shukla And Ors on 9 May, 2002
In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla[4], this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable.
Union Of India & Others vs S. Vinodh Kumar & Others on 18 September, 2007
In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar[5], this Court held that :
Munindra Kumar And Ors. Etc vs Rajiv Govil And Ors Etc on 10 May, 1991
"18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same... (See also Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil[6] and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission[7])."
Ku. Rashmi Mishra vs Madhya Pradesh Public Service ... on 19 October, 2006
"18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same... (See also Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil[6] and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission[7])."
Dharmendra Kumar & 2 Others (Inre 5158 ... vs Abhishek Kumar & 19 Others on 6 April, 2017
20. In the present case, there is no averment of violation of the service rules or Rule 8 of the Rules, 2001 rather the violation is alleged of the Government order dated 19.08.2014 which, as already indicated above, can at the most be considered to be only directory and not mandatory. Hence, the aforesaid judgment of Dharmendra Kumar (supra) is distinguishable and would not have any application in the facts of the present case.
K.A. Nagamani vs Indian Airlines & Ors on 27 March, 2009
This conduct of the Petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the Judgments in MadanLal v. State of J. and K. MANU/SC/0208/1995 : (1995) 3 SCC 486, MarripatiNagaraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. MANU/SC/8040/2007 : (2007) 11 SCC 522, Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. MANU/SC/7287/2008 : (2008) 4 SCC 171, AmlanJyotiBorooah v. State of Assam MANU/SC/0077/2009 : (2009) 3 SCC 227 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Ors. (supra)."
Virendra Kumar Verma vs Dr. Ayyaj Fakir Tamboli 20 Tpcr/3/2019 ... on 14 March, 2019
In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission[9], candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware that they were required to possess certain specific qualifications in computer operations.