Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.81 seconds)
Arvind Kumar Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors on 10 October, 2022 cites

Ashok Kumar Yadav And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc on 10 May, 1985

16. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for 7 the respondent that the decision rendered in K.Manjusree (Supra) did not notice the decisions in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 as well as K.H.Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others (2006) 6 SCC 395 and therefore should be regarded either as decision per incuriam or should be referred to Larger Bench for reconsideration, cannot be accepted. What is laid down in the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent is that it is always open to the authority making the rules regulating the selection to prescribe the minimum marks both for written examination and interview. The question whether introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview after the entire selection process was completed was valid or nor, never fell for consideration of this Court in the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 998 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

K.H. Siraj vs High Court Of Kerala & Ors on 23 May, 2006

16. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for 7 the respondent that the decision rendered in K.Manjusree (Supra) did not notice the decisions in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 as well as K.H.Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others (2006) 6 SCC 395 and therefore should be regarded either as decision per incuriam or should be referred to Larger Bench for reconsideration, cannot be accepted. What is laid down in the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent is that it is always open to the authority making the rules regulating the selection to prescribe the minimum marks both for written examination and interview. The question whether introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview after the entire selection process was completed was valid or nor, never fell for consideration of this Court in the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 362 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Umesh Chandra Shukla Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 August, 1985

In Umesh Chandra (supra), the scope of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970 came up for consideration. The rules provided that those who secured the prescribed minimum qualifying marks in the written examination will be called for viva voce; and that the marks obtained in the viva voce shall be added to the marks obtained in the written test and the candidates ranking shall depend on the aggregate of both 27 candidates were found eligible to appear for viva voce on the basis of their having secured the minimum prescribed marks in the written examination. The final list was therefore, expected to be prepared by merely adding the viva voce marks to the written examination marks in regard to those 27 candidates. But the final list that was prepared contained some new names which 8 were not in the list of 27 candidates who passed the written examination. Some names were omitted from the list of 27 candidates who passed the written examination."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 277 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Durgacharan Misra vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 27 August, 1987

In Durgacharan Misra (supra), this Court was considering the selection under the Orissa Service Rules which did not prescribe any minimum qualifying marks to be secured in viva voce for selection of Munsifs. The rules merely required that after the viva voce test the State Public Service Commission shall add the marks of the viva voce test to the marks in the written test. But the State Public Service Commission which was the selecting authority prescribed minimum qualifying marks for the viva voce test also. This Court held that the Commission had no power to prescribe the minimum standard at viva voce test for determining the suitability of candidates for appointment of Munsifs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 267 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Maharashtra State Road Tpt. ... vs Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors on 20 November, 2001

In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve 2001 (10) SCC 51, this Court observed that the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. In this case the position is much more serious. Here, not only the rules of the game were changed, but they were changed after the game has been played and the results of the game were being awaited. That is unacceptable and impermissible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 164 - Full Document

Basic Education Board, U.P vs Upendra Rai And Others on 12 February, 2008

18. Learned counsels for the intervenor and the State would submit that there is no change of rules of game after issuance of advertisement by the respondents as the skill test was conducted as per the circular dated 01.02.2013 and in place of 5000 depression per hour 1250 depression per 15 minutes was given to the candidates, which is in accordance with the circular dated 01.02.2013 by which the GAD has directed to amend the recruitment rules for appointment of Stenographer, Assistant Grade-III, Steno Typist and Data Entry Operator. Even in the skill test 90 marks was given and 10 marks were allotted for interview therefore, there is no change of rules therefore, the judgment referred by the petitioner is not applicable and would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. Learned counsel for the intervenor in his support contention has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Basic Education Board, U.P. V. Upendra Rai and others reported in 2008 (3) SCC 432 in paragraph 15 which reads as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 123 - M Katju - Full Document

Ramjit Singh Kardam vs Sanjeev Kumar on 8 April, 2020

20. From the above stated factual and legal matrix and considering the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that there is no change of rule of game, the selection process as provided in the advertisement is written examination which will be consisted of 90 marks and 10 marks for interview. The respondent in pursuance of the GAD circular dated 01.02.2013 has conducted selection process of conducting skill test which is of 90 marks and 10 marks for interview has been provided, thus, the marking pattern has not been changed which may call change or rule of game. The written examination and the skill test are having similar marking of 90 marks and for Assistant Grade-III, the candidate should have skill to perform his duty, therefore, there is no illegality on the part of the respondents to conduct skill test of typing in place of written examination. The said skill test is requirement for the service and the duty which has to be discharged while working as Assistant Grade-III, therefore, there is no illegality on the part of the respondent which warrants interference by this Court. Looking to the other angle of the matter, from records, it is quite clear that the petitioner without demurring has participated in the selection process of skill test wherein he has secured zero marks thereafter he has challenged the selection process, which is not permissible in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Ramjit Singh (Supra) and the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of the Court in Kalam Singh Rajput and Other Vs. State of C.G. in WPS No. 1291/2021 decided on 23.02.2022.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 138 - A Bhushan - Full Document

K.A. Nagamani vs Indian Airlines & Ors on 27 March, 2009

"39.The preposition that a candidate, who participates in a selection without a demur taking a calculated chance to get selected cannot turn around and challenge the criteria of selection and the constitution of the selection committee is well settled. The appellants have placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Madan Lal and Others Vs. State of J&K and Others, (1995) 3 SCC 486; K.A. Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines and Others, (2009) 5 SCC 515; Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 576; Madras Institute of Development Studies and Another Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and Others, (2016) 1 SCC 454 and Ashok Kumar and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 357.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 309 - B S Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next