Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.34 seconds)
Dr. R. Murali vs Dr. R. Kamalakkannan And Three Others on 1 October, 1999 cites

Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986

39. Following the decision in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 SCC (Supp) 285, in Madan Lal v. State of J & K, , their Lordships held thus, "9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view that salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 652 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Kumari Chitra Ghosh And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 April, 1969

The power to lay down sources from which selection would be made was expressly conceded to the Government in Kumari Chitra Ghise v. Union of India, this Court observing in that connection at pp 418 and 419 of the report that since it was the Government which bore the financial burden of running the medical college, it could lay down the criteria for eligibility and that from the very nature of things it was not possible to throw the admission open to students from all over the country. Consequently, the Government could not be denied the right to decide from what sources admissions would be made. The Court at the same time emphasised that if the sources were properly classified, whether on territorial, geographical or other reasonable basis, the Court would refuse to interfere with the manner and method of making the classification. The classifications there made were in relation to candidates from Union territories other than Delhi, children of Central Government servants posted in India missions abroad, candidates under the Colombo Plan and other international arrangements, scholars from Jammu and Kashmir, etc. These classifications were found justifiable on one ground or the other and as based on intelligible differentia which distinguished candidates falling within from the rest.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 103 - A N Grover - Full Document

Preeti Srivastava (Dr.)& Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 10 August, 1999

26. It is at this juncture, learned Counsel for writ petitioners relied on a recent decision of Honourable Supreme Court reported in Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999 (4) Scale 579. Counsel relied on para 60 of the Judgment. We do not think that the method of selection in this case goes against the principles enunciated by Honourable Supreme Court. Their Lordships in that case declared that in Super Speciality cases merit alone is to be considered. In that case their Lordships have declared that in selection to Super Speciality Courses, no special provision as enjoined under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India is permissible the same being contrary to rational interest. In the earlier portion of the judgment, their Lordships have declared that, "... The general category candidates do not have any social disabilities which prevent them from giving of their best. The special opportunity which is provided by reservation cannot, however, be made available to those who are substantially below the levels prescribed for the general category candidates. It will not be possible for such candidates to fully benefit from the very limited and specialised post-graduate training opportunities which are designed to produce high calibre will trained professionals for the benefit of the public. Article 15(4) and the spirit of reason which permeates it, do not permit lowering of minimum qualifying marks at the post-graduate level to 20% for the reserved category as against 45% for the general category candidates. It will be for the Medical Council of India to decide whether such lowering is permissible and if so what extent...."
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 421 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Shri Ritesh R. Sah vs Dr. Y.L. Yamul & Ors on 15 February, 1996

51. Reliance was also placed in Ritesh R. Sah v. Y.L. Yamul, of the Judgment, their Lordships held thus, "A student, who is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit though belonging to a reserved category cannot be considered to be admitted against seats reserved for reserved category. But at the same time the provisions should be so made that it will not work out to the disadvantage of such candidate and he may not be placed at a more disadvantageous position than the other loss meritorious reserved category candidates. The aforesaid objective can be achieved if after finding out the candidates from amongst the reserved category who would otherwise come in the open merit list and then asking their option for admission into the different colleges which have been kept reserved for reserved category thereafter the cases of less meritorious reserved category candidates should be considered and they will be allotted the seats in whichever colleges the seats should be available. In other words, while a reserved category candidate entitled to admission on the basis of his merit will have the option of taking admission to the colleges where a specified number of seats have been kept reserved for reserved category but while computing the percentage of reservation he will be deemed to have been admitted as a open category candidate and not as a reserved category candidate."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 463 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Madan Lal vs State Of J&K on 6 August, 1997

39. Following the decision in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 SCC (Supp) 285, in Madan Lal v. State of J & K, , their Lordships held thus, "9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view that salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 320 - G N Ray - Full Document
1   2 Next