Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)Harpratap Singh vs State Of Punjab --Respondent on 28 July, 2014
From perusal of documents brought on record, it
transpires that petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 also appeared along
with others but could not get success. When they were declared
RC
8
unsuccessful, they have challenged the said contractual appointment by
filing W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 and obtained stay order bringing wrong fact
before this Court and by concealing relevant facts. The petitioners in W.P.(S)
No. 675 of 2018 are still working and have not yet been removed. On the
basis of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675
of 2018, this Court had taken serious view of the matter that the State of
Jharkhand is not taking serious steps for appointment of Lecturers/ Assistant
Professors on regular basis instead contractual appointments are being
made and considering the Judgments passed in the case of State of
Haryana & Others Vs. Piara Singh & others reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130
as also the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Others reported in (2007) 13
SCC 292, had passed an interim order dated 09.02.2018 and had stayed
operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated
27.01.2018.
Dhananjay Malik & Ors vs State Of Uttaranchal & Ors on 5 March, 2008
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Dhananjay Malik and others
Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171, has
clearly held in para-7 which reads as under:
Madan Lal vs State Of J&K on 6 August, 1997
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal Vs. State of J & K
reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486, has reiterated the same view and has held
that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the
members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as
well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance
to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, 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 writ petitions. This Court further pointed out that if a candidate
takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because
RC
9
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.
State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992
From perusal of documents brought on record, it
transpires that petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 also appeared along
with others but could not get success. When they were declared
RC
8
unsuccessful, they have challenged the said contractual appointment by
filing W.P.(S) No. 675 of 2018 and obtained stay order bringing wrong fact
before this Court and by concealing relevant facts. The petitioners in W.P.(S)
No. 675 of 2018 are still working and have not yet been removed. On the
basis of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 675
of 2018, this Court had taken serious view of the matter that the State of
Jharkhand is not taking serious steps for appointment of Lecturers/ Assistant
Professors on regular basis instead contractual appointments are being
made and considering the Judgments passed in the case of State of
Haryana & Others Vs. Piara Singh & others reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130
as also the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Others reported in (2007) 13
SCC 292, had passed an interim order dated 09.02.2018 and had stayed
operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated
27.01.2018.
Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914
Section 35 in The Jharkhand State Agricultural University Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Marripati Nagaraja & Ors vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 12 October, 2007
In the recent Judgment in the case of Marripati Nagaraja Vs. Govt.
of A.P. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 522, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
succinctly held that the appellants had appeared at the examination without
any demur. They did not question the validity of fixing the said date before
the appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from
questioning the selection process.
1