Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
Chandra Kumar Ambilkar vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary on 13 June, 2016 cites

B. Amrutha Lakshmi vs State Of A.P. And Ors on 18 October, 2013

In the case of B. Amrutha Lakshmi (supra) Honble Supreme Court has held as under  If the rules for selection contain a requirement, the same has to be applied uniformly and strictly, and none from the eligible group can be eliminated from being considered on any criteria, other than those which are provided in the rules. If there is a criteria laid down for selection, the Administration has to confine to the same, and it cannot impose an additional criterion over and above whatever has been laid down. If that is done, it will no longer remain an exercise of discretion, but will result into discrimination. It will mean treating similarly situated employees dissimilarly, and denying equal opportunity to some of them in the matter of public employment on the basis of a criterion which is not laid down, resulting into violation of Articles 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008

In view of law laid down by Honble Supreme court in the cases referred above, we are of the view that the eligibility qualifications cannot be altered at any stage after publication of advertisement. As the applicants were eligible for consideration for appointment on the posts of Mason (SS) and Fitter Auto (SS) and they qualified written examinations as well as trade tests and were finally declared successful, their candidature could not be cancelled on the ground that they did not possess NAC/NTC issued by NCVT. However, the respondents in para 9 of their reply have submitted that out of 1003 candidates short-listed in written examination for trade test, only 11 candidates including the applicants possessed trade test certificate issued by SCVT, remaining were with NCT/NCVT certificates. The applicants were allowed to participate in the written examination and on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination candidates were short-listed for trade test in the ratio of 1.25 times of the number of vacancies. Since the applicants were short-listed for trade test, there are chances of having left over the candidates those who have with NCT/NCVT certificates. Therefore, the contention of the applicants that there were not sufficient number of candidates having NCT/NCVT certificate, hence they were selected, can not be accepted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 638 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Dr. Vishwanath Mehrotra & Others vs High Court Of Judicature & Others on 3 August, 2010

In the case of Himani Mehrotra v. High Court of Delhi, MANU/SC/1844/2008 : (2008) 7 SCC 11, it has been held by Honble Apex Court that during the recruitment process the recruitment rules cannot be changed. It was held that there was prescription of minimum marks for written test only and minimum marks were not provided for viva voce. It was held that it is not permissible to provide minimum marks for viva voce.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - P Mithal - Full Document
1