Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008
In support of its view, the Division Bench of the High Court, has
placed reliance on two decisions of this Court, one in K. Manjusree v. State
of Andhra Pradesh and another, (2008) 3 SCC 512 and the other Hemani
Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11. Mr. Viswanathan also
cited before us the decision in K. Manjusree and invited our attention
particularly to the following passage in paragraph 33 of the judgment:
Hemani Malhotra vs High Court Of Delhi on 3 April, 2008
In support of its view, the Division Bench of the High Court, has
placed reliance on two decisions of this Court, one in K. Manjusree v. State
of Andhra Pradesh and another, (2008) 3 SCC 512 and the other Hemani
Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11. Mr. Viswanathan also
cited before us the decision in K. Manjusree and invited our attention
particularly to the following passage in paragraph 33 of the judgment:
Ramesh Kumar vs High Court Of Delhi & Anr on 1 February, 2010
29. Mr. Viswanathan also relied upon the decision of this Court in
Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi and another, (2010) 3 SCC 104.
This decision also has no relevance to the facts of the present case. In
Ramesh Kumar, what this Court said is that for appointment to the judicial
services, in the absence of any contrary provision in the relevant rules
Delhi High Court should not have fixed any minimum qualifying marks for
the viva voce because this Court had accepted Justice Shetty Commission's
report which had prescribed not to have any cut off mark for interview.
Actually what is said in paragraph 15 of the judgment in Ramesh Kumar
demolishes the case of the respondents:
All India Judges Association And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 March, 2002
"16. In the instant case, the Rules do not provide for any
particular procedure/criteria for holding the tests rather it
enables the High Court to prescribe the criteria. This Court in
All India Judges' Assn. (3) v. Union of India, [(2002) 4 SCC
247], accepted Justice Shetty Commission's Report in this
regard which had prescribed for not having minimum marks for
21
interview. The Court further explained that to give effect to the
said judgment, the existing statutory rules may be amended.
However, till the amendment is carried out, the vacancies shall
be filled as per the existing statutory rules.
Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr vs U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors on 3 April, 2006
A similar view has
been reiterated by this Court while dealing with the
appointment of Judicial Officers in Syed T.A. Naqshbandi v.
State of J&K [(2003) 9 SCC 592] and Malik Mazhar Sultan
(3) v. U.P. Public Service Commission [(2008) 17 SCC 703].
Rakhi Ray & Ors vs High Court Of Delhi & Ors on 1 February, 2010
We have also accepted the said settled legal proposition while
deciding the connected cases i.e. Rakhi Ray v. High Court of
Delhi [(2010) 2 SCC 637] vide judgment and order of this date.
It has been clarified in Rakhi Ray that where statutory rules do
not deal with a particular subject/issue, so far as the
appointment of the Judicial Officers is concerned, directions
issued by this Court would have binding effect."
Ashok Kumar Yadav And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc on 10 May, 1985
23. When playing around with numbers one is quite likely to come up
with some figures that might appear unusual and unexpected but that alone
will not make out a case of bias or legal malafide (See the decision by a
bench of four judges of this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of
Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417, paragraph 21). In the facts of the case as noted
above we are satisfied that the examples cited by the respondents do not
show that there was any arbitrariness or play of bias in giving marks to the
candidates in the viva voce or that there was any flaw in the selection
process making it liable to be struck down.
The Right to Information Act, 2005
1