Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.31 seconds)
Rajeev Ranjan Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 7 May, 2013 cites

Director General, Telecommunication & ... vs T.N. Peethambaram on 19 September, 1986

39. As noted above, for all the four examinations, the same government resolution dated 21.12.1990 was to be taken into consideration and if on account of a wrong interpretation by the Commission, the recommendations were made by taking an aggregate of the two subjects of the written examination in respect of two of them which was/is contrary to the provisions specified in the government resolution dated 21.12.1990, this Court cannot issue a direction to the Commission to commit same error for recommending the names of the candidates of the advertisement no. 1906 dated 29.11.2006 including the petitioners of these nine writ petitioners for Patna High Court CWJC No.12121 of 2012 dt. 07-05-2013 45 the post of Junior Engineer on the basis of aggregate marks secured by them in the written examination of both the subjects which in effect would amount to perpetuating illegality. The government resolution dated 21.12.1990 while laying down the norms and methodology of the minimum cut-off marks in written examination talks only of the ^^izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk**" i.e. competitive xamination" and does not specify a different standard for each subject and, therefore, attaining the prescribed minimum passing standard in the written examination in both the subjects separately has to be applied as was also clearly held and explained by the Apex Court in the case of T.N. Peethambaram (supra) laying down that "minimum must mean minimum in each as much as minimum in aggregate".
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 34 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Secretary, Jaipur Development ... vs Daulat Mal Jain on 20 September, 1996

(emphasis in original) This position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. (See Secy., Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [(1997)1 SCC 35] and Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi.) [(2006)10 SCC 337] It would, thus, suffice to say that an order made in favour of a person in violation of the prescribed procedure cannot form a legal premise for any other person to claim parity with the said illegal or irregular order. A judicial forum cannot be used to perpetuate the illegalities."
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 344 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Shankarsan Dash vs Union Of India on 30 April, 1991

11. It is here again that this Court would find considerable merit in the objection of the Government. The Patna High Court CWJC No.12121 of 2012 dt. 07-05-2013 18 Government on receipt of the result and the recommendation sent by the Commission on 2.4.2012 had found that a large number of candidates had performed miserably and in fact had secured marks in minus in their main subject of Engineering and yet were recommended. The Government, being the appointing authority, had, therefore, a right to question such recommendation of the Commission and in fact, if the Government could have rejected the entire recommendation of the Commission as a whole and could have asked for a fresh selection to be undergone even that was very much permissible. Law in this regard is well settled that the recommendation of the Commission is not binding on the appointing authority and for a valid reason, the appointing authority can refuse to accept such recommendation made by the Commission. Reference in this connection made be usefully made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shankaran Dash Vs. Union of India reported in 1991(3)SCC 47.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1160 - L M Sharma - Full Document

P. Mahendran vs State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 1989

33. This Court is also not impressed with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the ratio of the case of P. Mahendran & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 405 in any way would be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, as noted above, there is no rule prescribing the mode of selection on the post of Junior Engineer based on an aggregate in the written examination, therefore, if the Commission has uniformly adopted the principle of fixing the minimum qualifying marks in the written examination in the subjects of General Knowledge and Engineering, that cannot be said to be amendment in the norms of selection procedure or the rules relating to selection and recommendation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 462 - K N Singh - Full Document

Upendra Narayan Pandit And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 16 May, 2002

34. The long and short of these cases, therefore, is that once the Government in its letter dated 23.5.2012 had pointed out the obvious discrepancy in the earlier recommendation of the Commission dated 2.4.2012, the Commission had examined the same Patna High Court CWJC No.12121 of 2012 dt. 07-05-2013 40 and had corrected its earlier recommendation by strictly observing the spirit of the Government resolution dated 22.12.1990 while sending its revised recommendation on 1.6.2012. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Upendra Narayan Pandit & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2002(3)PLJR 50 wherein the effect of the government resolution dated 22.12.1990 has been considered is wholly misplaced. In fact, in that case there was a statutory rules prescribing the mode of manner of appointment on the post of Drug Inspector in which there was no specific provision made for the candidates of backward category because those rules were framed in the year 1989 at a point of time when the reservation for the backward category had not come into force. However, in course of time, when such reservation for backward category was given, the selection on the basis of aforesaid government resolution dated 22.12.1990 fixing the minimum cut-off mark for the backward category was approved while holding that the said resolution was only filling up the gap and supersede the statutory Drug Inspector Recruitment Rules, 1989.
Patna High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 10 - P N Yadav - Full Document
1   2 Next