Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.13 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Lila Dhar vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 19 August, 1981
In Lila Dhar
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under in paragraph 5
relevant part thereof is extracted hereinbelow:
K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008
In the submission of the respondents, ratio laid down in
Manjusree versus State of Andhra Pradesh since reported in (2008) 3
SCC 512 would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. The
said judgment was rendered by the Apex Court in a totally different
factual scenario. As about the interview of the short listed candidates
including the petitioner(s) held by the interview Board, it is submitted
that facts stated in the counter affidavit would eloquently indicate that
there was no bias much less regional bias in awarding marks to the
candidates including the writ petitioner(s) who faced interview. It is
next contended that the writ application(s) are bound to fail since the
petitioner had taken written test followed by interview and thus had
taken a chance to get themselves selected and having failed thereat,
they cannot be allowed to volte face and challenge the entire selection
process. In other words, if a candidate takes a calculated chance and
7
appears at the interview, then only because the result of the interview
is not palatable to him, he/they cannot turn around and contend that
the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was
not properly constituted.
State Of Bihar And Anr. vs Madan Lal Jain on 14 August, 1981
Same view has been held by the Supreme Court in the State of
Bihar versus Madan Lal (supra). Ratio laid down in aforesaid cases, in
15
my view, would also be applicable to the present case.
Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986
This matter may be viewed from yet another angle also. The
petitioners were found eligible for written test and was called in
therefor. They participated therein and thereafter was/were short listed
for oral interview. On being summoned, they appeared at the oral
interview conducted by a team of persons of high integrity and caliber
and after having failed to get the desired result, filed the present writ
petitions challenging the process/procedure adopted at the interview
as unfair, discriminatory and biased. The Supreme Court having
noticed the aforesaid facts refused relief in Om Prakash Shukla versus
Akhilesh Kumar Shukla (1986 ) Suppl. SCC 285 = A.I.R. 1986 S.C.
1043.
Madan Lal vs State Of J&K on 6 August, 1997
Reliance in this regard has been placed on
the case of Madal Lal and Ors versus the State of J & K since
reported in (1995) 3 S.C.C. 486. Learned counsel also highlighted the
importance of viva voce in the matter of selection.
K.H. Siraj vs High Court Of Kerala & Ors on 23 May, 2006
Relying on
paragraph 54 of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of K.H.
Siraj versus High Court of Kerala and Ors ((2006) 6 S.C.C. 395), it is
submitted that personal interview is the best mode of assessing the
suitability of a candidate for a particular post or position. While the
written examination is to testify the candidates academic knowledge,
the oral test alone can bring out his overall intellectual and personal
qualities like alertness, resourcefulness, dependability, ability to take
decision and qualities of leadership etc.
Yogesh Kumar vs The Union Of India & Ors on 1 March, 2011
These batch of writ petitions have been clubbed together as
they raise common issue(s). With the consent of the parties, all the
aforesaid writ petitions have been heard together and the present
order would govern them. Relevant annexures of the case shall be
3
referred from C.W.J.C. No. 3314 of 2011 (Yogesh Kumar versus
Union of India).