Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.55 seconds)
Penaaz Dhillon vs State Of Haryana And Others on 14 January, 2022 cites

H.P.Public Service Commission vs Mukesh Thakur & Anr on 25 May, 2010

In our opinion, the issue of setting of papers of selecting correct answers is the job best left to the experts. By now it is settled law that it is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself. It cannot assume the role of an expert. The Supreme Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Mudesh Thakur and another, (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 759, while framing the question with respect to the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters related to examinations held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 842 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. & Ors vs Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao Etc on 30 January, 1996

In Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Dr P. Sambasiva Rao & Ors., (1996) 7 SCC 499, this Court held that in a case where the relief of regularisation is sought by employees working for a long time on ad hoc basis, it is not desirable for the Court to issue direction for regularisation straightaway. The proper relief in such cases is the issuance of direction to the authority concerned to constitute a Selection Committee to consider the matter of regularisation of the ad hoc employees as per the Rules for regular appointment for the reason that the regularisation is not automatic, it depends on availability of number of vacancies, suitability and eligibility of the ad hoc appointee and particularly as to whether the ad hoc appointee had an eligibility for appointment on the date of initial as adhoc and while considering the case of regularisation, the Rules have to be strictly adhered to as dispensing with the Rules is totally impermissible in law. In certain cases, even the consultation with the Public Service Commission may be required, therefore, such a direction cannot be issued.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 54 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Government Of Orissa And Anr. vs Hanichal Roy And Anr. on 5 May, 1998

In Government of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Hanichal Roy & Anr., (1998) 6 SCC 626, this Court considered the 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 00:04:18 ::: CWP-698-2022 -4- case wherein the High Court had granted relaxation of service conditions. This Court held that the High Court could not take upon itself the task of the Statutory Authority. The only order which High Court could have passed, was to direct the Government to consider his case for relaxation forming an opinion in view of the statutory provisions as to whether the relaxation was required in the facts and circumstances of the case. Issuing such a direction by the Court was illegal and impermissible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Veerappa Pillai vs Raman & Raman Ltd. And Others on 17 March, 1952

In G. Veerappa Pillai Vs. Raman and Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192, the Constitution Bench of this Court while considering the case for grant of permits under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, held that High Court ought to have quashed the proceedings of the Transport Authority, but issuing the direction for grant of permits was clearly in excess of its powers and jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 465 - N C Aiyar - Full Document

Ramandeep Kaur vs Counsel Of Scientific Industrisal ... on 28 September, 2017

4. As held by their Lordships, merely because in this case the subject happens to be law, we would not be able to arrogate to ourselves the powers of the expert committee. What the Court has to see is whether the process of selection is fair and above board. We are also fortified by the decision of this Court passed in Ramandeep Kaur Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), 2017(4) S.C.T. 329, wherein 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 00:04:18 ::: CWP-698-2022 -5- after considering whole case law on the 'Examination Jurisprudence', this Court held as follows:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1