Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.41 seconds)Hemani Malhotra vs High Court Of Delhi on 3 April, 2008
(2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] as well as in Hemani
Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi [Hemani
Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC
11 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 203] . In my view
once the petitioner was declared as the lone
candidate having passed in the written
examination, it matters little whether
minimum marks for interview were introduced
before or after calling him for interview. The
40
petitioner or any other person in his place,
knowing fully well that there was no separate
cut-off or pass mark for the viva voce, would
not feel any pressure to be extra ready for the
interview. In order to ensure fairness, after
the Full Court decision on 12-1-2015 to fix
40% as pass marks for viva voce, the
petitioner ought to have been informed of this
development, at least when intimation of date
of interview was communicated to him
through letter dated 29-1-2015. Since the viva
voce was held on 12-2-2015, he would have
got some time to improve his preparations to
meet the 40% cut-off newly introduced. That
was not done. In such circumstances, I do not
find any material, reason or circumstance to
distinguish the case of K. Manjusree [K.
Manjusreev. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 :
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 32 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dhanajaya Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 14 March, 2001
(See also in this
connection Dhanajay Reddy vs. State of
Karnataka, (2001) 4 SCC 9). The statute
in question requires the authority to act
in accordance with the rules for
variation of the conditions attached to
the permit. In our view, it is not
permissible to the State Government to
purport to alter these conditions by
issuing a notification under Section
67(1) (d) read with sub-clause (i)
thereof."
Director General, Esi & Anr vs T. Abdul Razak Etc on 8 July, 1996
(b) Supreme Court in the case of
Director General, ESI and another vs. T.
Abdul Razak reported in (1996) 4 SCC
708 in para no.14 held as under:-
Chairman-Cum-M.D.,Coal India Ld.& Ors vs Ananta Saha & Ors on 6 April, 2011
(c) Supreme Court in the case of
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal
49
India Limited and others vs. Ananta
Saha and others, reported in (2011) 5
Supreme Court Cases, 142, in para nos.
32 and 33 held as under:-
Badrinath vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 29 September, 2000
In Badrinath v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu
& Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243, this Court
observed that once the basis of a
proceeding is gone, all consequential
acts, actions, orders would fall to the
ground automatically and this principle
of consequential order which is
applicable to judicial and quasijudicial
proceedings is equally applicable to
administrative orders."