Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.77 seconds)
Salam Samarjeet Singh vs The High Court Of Manipur At Imphal on 7 October, 2016 cites

State Of Haryana vs Subash Chander Marwaha And Ors on 2 May, 1973

In the context, it was held: (Subash Chander Marwaha case, (1974) 3 SCC 220 p. 227, para 12) “12. … In a case where appointments are made by selection from a number of eligible candidates it is open to the Government with a view to maintain high standards of competence to fix a score which is much higher than the one required for more (sic mere) eligibility.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 762 - D G Palekar - Full Document

Ramesh Kumar vs High Court Of Delhi & Anr on 1 February, 2010

The judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi & Anr.3 draws some inspiration from the recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission’s Report in para 16 but the general law already settled and stated in para 15 also clearly helps the case of the petitioner. In my view the statutory rules did prescribe a particular mode of selection which did not require any pass mark for the viva voce examination and it had to be given strict adherence accordingly, at least till the ongoing recruitment process got concluded. Since the procedure was already prescribed by the Rules, in the present case there was clear impediment in law in the way of the High Court in proceeding to lay down minimum pass mark for the viva voce test which was meant only for the petitioner as he was the lone candidate successful in the written examination. In my view the petitioner was clearly prejudiced and although no case of bias has been pleaded, the impugned action would validly attract the criticism of malice in law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 102 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned act of bringing about change in the selection procedure by providing minimum marks for interview or viva voce test in midst of the selection process which has already been initiated amounts to changing the rules of the game and hence impermissible, is well supported by judgment in the case of K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.1 as well as in the case of 1 7 W.P.(C)No.294/2015 Hemani Malhotra Etc. v. High Court of Delhi2. In my view once 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 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 12.01.2015 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 29.01.2015. Since the viva voce was held on 12.02.2015, 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 as well as of Hemani Malhotra. In my considered view the High Court did not have the power to change the scheme of the rules which prescribed pass marks only for the written examination, deliberately omitted the same for viva voce examination and warranted final results after adding both the marks. If for the sake of (2008) 3 SCC 512 2 (2008) 7 SCC 11 8 W.P.(C)No.294/2015 arguments, such power is conceded even then the power could not have been exercised to change the rules of the game when petitioner alone was left in the arena and could not have been disqualified except by changing the rules midway. Para 15 in the case of Hemani Malhotra extracted earlier in the preceding judgment applies on all force like the judgment in the case of K. Manjusree. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance on those judgments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 638 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors vs Rajasthan High Court & Ors on 20 March, 2013

9. For the aforesaid reasons alone, in my view, there is no need in the present case to go into recommendations of the Shetty Commission, even if it be conceded for the sake of arguments that State Government may decide not to fill up posts if it has reasons to believe that appointing the selected candidate would adversely affect the required standards of competence. That stage was never arrived at in this case. Hence reference to an issue of aforesaid nature to a larger Bench by the order in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.4 rendered by a Bench of three Judges will not have any effect on the outcome of this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 150 - Full Document

Kulwinder Pal Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 12 May, 2016

So far as the judgment in 6 (2002) 4 SCC 247 7 (1995) 3 SCC 486 11 W.P.(C)No.294/2015 the case of Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.8 is concerned, I am in respectful agreement with the same and with the view expressed by Banumathi, J. that only being in the selected panel does not give the petitioner or anybody else an indefeasible right to get an appointment. But the vacancies, as highlighted in paragraph 11, have to be filled up as per statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate. I do not see anything in that judgment against the consideration of petitioner’s case in accordance with law after declaring his results by ignoring the pass mark criteria for the viva voce examination introduced by the High Court and then proceed as per Rules by adding the marks of written examination with that of viva voce test. All actions of authorities must meet the test of reasonableness and in case petitioner is not offered appointment though being the only successful candidate, then the respondents may have to justify their action, if challenged, on the basis of case of Kulwinder Pal Singh and similar other judgments. As already indicated earlier, that stage is yet to arrive.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 7118 - R Banumathi - Full Document

P.K. Ramachandra Iyer & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 1983

14. Unfortunately, the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha (1974) 3 SCC 220 does not appear to have been brought to the notice of Their Lordships in Manjusree (2008) 3 SCC 512. This Court in Manjusree (2008) 3 SCC 512 relied upon P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 141, Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 721 and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa(1987) 4 SCC 646. In none of the cases, was the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha (1974) 3 SCC 220 considered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 396 - D A Desai - Full Document

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

14. Unfortunately, the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha (1974) 3 SCC 220 does not appear to have been brought to the notice of Their Lordships in Manjusree (2008) 3 SCC 512. This Court in Manjusree (2008) 3 SCC 512 relied upon P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 141, Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 721 and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa(1987) 4 SCC 646. In none of the cases, was the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha (1974) 3 SCC 220 considered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 277 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

All India Judges Association And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 March, 2002

24. Petitioner contends that the decision of the High Court to prescribe minimum qualification marks is against the recommendations of the Shetty Commission and is violative of the judgment of this Court in All India Judges’ Association and Ors. v. 30 W.P.(C)No.294/2015 Union of India and Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 247. It is further argued that in the said case, the Court accepted Shetty Commission’s Report which has recommended not having cut-off marks in interview for the recruitment of the judicial officers.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 147 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next