Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
Dr.Olga George vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 September, 2014 cites

Bimlesh Tanwar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 10 March, 2003

28. Therefore, it is made clear in the judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar's case (cited supra) that the selection made based on the roster point does not determine the seniority and therefore, there is no reason for the TNPSC to allot Dr.C.Jeyam to roster point 3 and to Dr.J.Pooja Anbu at roster point 5. In fact, Dr.Pooja Anbu cannot be allotted to roster point 5, which is meant for General Turn candidates, since the petitioner would have preference to roster point No.5 over Dr.Pooja Anbu as the petitioner secured more marks than Dr.Pooja Anbu and the petitioner has ranked above Dr.Pooja Anbu. Dr.Pooja Anbu does not compete with General Turn candidates as she ranks at Sl.No.9, while there are only 3 GT vacancies within the 10 roster points.. Those points are to be allotted to the first three rank holders, irrespective of their communities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 160 - S B Sinha - Full Document

P.S Ghalaut vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 1995

31. However, in my considered opinion, TNPSC did not commit this mistake deliberately and they were under the wrong impression due to the judgment in P.S.Ghalaut's case (cited supra) and the same was overruled subsequently. The law is settled thereafter by the two judgments of this Court. There is no infirmity in the selection of candidates and the only infirmity is in allocation of candidates against particular roster points.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 30 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

K.R.Shanthi vs The Secretary To Government on 1 October, 2012

29. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent has also brought to my notice the judgment of learned judge of this Court in K.R.Shanthi v. Secretary to Government, Education Department reported in (2012) 7 MLJ 241, wherein, the following steps were laid for selection as per the roster points after considering the judgments of the Apex Court in this regard. Paragraph 14 of the judgment reads as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1