Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 162 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 33 in The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
B. N. Nagarajan And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. Etc on 3 May, 1959
In support of the aforesaid decision, he relies upon the
Page 6 of 31
decision of the Apex Court in the case of B.N. Nagarajan
and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors ., reported in
(1979) 4 SCC 507.
Dwarka Nath vs Income-Tax Officer, Special Circle ... on 29 March, 1965
In support of the aforesaid
decision, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Dwarka Nath vs. Income Tax Officer, Special
Circle, reported in AIR 1966 SC 81. He further submits that
in the instant case, the private respondents having been
promoted in violation of the law, their appointment is illegal
and warrants interference.
Alka Ojha vs Rajasthan Public Ser.Commn.& Anr on 25 August, 2011
In support of the aforesaid
decision, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Alka Ojha vs. Rajasthan Public Service
Commission, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 438.
Suraj Parkash Bhagat And Others vs State Of J&K And Another on 16 October, 2020
In support of the aforesaid
submission, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Suraj Parkash Gupta and Ors., vs. State of
J&K and Ors., reported in (2000) 7 SCC 561.
Dr. M.C. Gupta And Ors. vs Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta And Ors. on 15 December, 1978
27] Reading the aforesaid minutes, it is clear that in view
of the fact that only a few candidates were able to obtain the
pass mark of 130 out of 300 and since the officers, as
narrated to the respondent APSC, are often hard-pressed for
time for adequate preparation for the departmental
examination in question, the respondent APSC discussed the
possibility of awarding grace marks. During discussion,
though it was apprised that there was no specific provision for
awarding grace marks in the relevant service rules, the
respondent APSC, in terms of precedence, has been awarding
grace marks to the candidates, enabling them to come out
successful. It is further apparent that after a detailed
discussion, the respondent APSC decided to fix the benchmark
at 120, meaning thereby that those candidates who got 120
marks will get grace marks of 10 in order to bring their marks
Page 26 of 31
to 130, which is the prescribed pass marks. It is thus
apparent that, in view of the aforesaid decision taken by the
respondent APSC, the aforesaid four candidates who had
scored 120 were awarded 10 marks each and thereafter
declared selected in the Departmental (Promotion)
Examination. Undoubtedly, this court, while exercising powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot examine
the decision of the respondent APSC, which is in the realm of
administrative decision; however, can only examine the
manner in which the decision has been taken. It is needless
to emphasize that it is not the function of the writ court to
hear appeals over the decisions of the selection committees
and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the
candidates. In other words, the decision of the selection
committee/public service commission can be interfered with
only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material
irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its
procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides
affecting the selection, etc. Reference in this regard is made
to the decision of the Apex court in the case of Dr. M. C.
Gupta and Ors., vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta and Ors. ,
reported in (1979) 2 SCC 339. Relevant paragraphs of the
aforesaid judgment read as hereunder: -