Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.41 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kumari Anamica Mishra And Anr. Etc. Etc vs U.P. Public Service ... on 9 November, 1989
In Anamica Mishra and Others v. U.P. Public
Service Commission, Allahabad and Others; (1990) Supp
SCC 692, the issue involved was that in recruitment to
various posts in the educational service of the State of Uttar
Pradesh, it was found that after the written examination, due
to improper feeding of data into the computer, some
candidates who had shown better performance in the written
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
36/76
examination were not called for the interview and persons
with lesser marks were called for the interview and were
finally selected. The entire process was cancelled by the
Public Service Commission. The Supreme Court found that
when there was no defect with regard to the written
examination and the sole objection was confined to the
exclusion of a group of successful candidates in the written
examination for the interview, there was no justification for
cancelling the written part of the recruitment examination.
The situation could have been rectified by asking for a fresh
interview of all eligible candidates on the basis of written
examination.
Union Of India & Ors vs Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu & Anr on 30 July, 2003
In Union of India and Others v. Rajesh P.U.,
Puthuvalnikathu and Another (2003) 7 SCC 285, where
the entire examination was cancelled on the allegation of
favouritism being shown by some of the officers conducting
the physical efficiency test as also irregularities in the
written examination, the Supreme Court affirmed the view
of the High Court that there was no justification to cancel
the entire selection when the impact of irregularities which
had crept into the evaluation of merits could be identified
specifically with respect to particular number of candidates.
Joginder Pal & Ors. Etc vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 23 May, 2014
In Sachin Kumar (supra) the Supreme Court
after taking into account the dictum in the aforenoted cases
as also in Joginder Pal and Others v. State of Punjab and
Others; (2014) 6 SCC 644; Chairman, All India Railway
Recruitment Board and Another v. K. Shyam Kumar and
Others; (2010) 6 SCC 614; State of Tamil Nadu and
Another v. A. Kalaimani and Others; (2021) 16 SCC 217
and Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai and Others v. State of
Gujarat and Others; (2017) 13 SCC 621 has observed that:
Chairman, All Railway Rec. Board & Anr vs K. Shyam Kumar & Ors on 6 May, 2010
In Sachin Kumar (supra) the Supreme Court
after taking into account the dictum in the aforenoted cases
as also in Joginder Pal and Others v. State of Punjab and
Others; (2014) 6 SCC 644; Chairman, All India Railway
Recruitment Board and Another v. K. Shyam Kumar and
Others; (2010) 6 SCC 614; State of Tamil Nadu and
Another v. A. Kalaimani and Others; (2021) 16 SCC 217
and Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai and Others v. State of
Gujarat and Others; (2017) 13 SCC 621 has observed that:
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs A Kalaimani on 8 August, 2019
In Sachin Kumar (supra) the Supreme Court
after taking into account the dictum in the aforenoted cases
as also in Joginder Pal and Others v. State of Punjab and
Others; (2014) 6 SCC 644; Chairman, All India Railway
Recruitment Board and Another v. K. Shyam Kumar and
Others; (2010) 6 SCC 614; State of Tamil Nadu and
Another v. A. Kalaimani and Others; (2021) 16 SCC 217
and Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai and Others v. State of
Gujarat and Others; (2017) 13 SCC 621 has observed that:
Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai And Ors vs State Of Gujarat And Ors on 28 April, 2017
In Sachin Kumar (supra) the Supreme Court
after taking into account the dictum in the aforenoted cases
as also in Joginder Pal and Others v. State of Punjab and
Others; (2014) 6 SCC 644; Chairman, All India Railway
Recruitment Board and Another v. K. Shyam Kumar and
Others; (2010) 6 SCC 614; State of Tamil Nadu and
Another v. A. Kalaimani and Others; (2021) 16 SCC 217
and Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai and Others v. State of
Gujarat and Others; (2017) 13 SCC 621 has observed that: