Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.20 seconds)Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors vs Anil Joshi & Ors on 3 April, 2013
In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents.?
Section 36 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Madras Inst.Of Dev. Studies & Anr vs K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors on 20 August, 2015
In Madras Institute of Development Studies vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan, (2016) 1 SCC 454, the Apex Court has held that a candidate who has further applied pursuant to the advertisement and the rules without raising any objection to the alleged advertisement and rules, and participated in the selection process by appearing before the Committee of Experts and after he was not selected, cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the very selection process.
State Of U.P. & Anr vs Om Prakash & Ors on 21 July, 2006
23. Thus, from the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court, it is settled position of law that when an advertisement describes the essential qualifications as well as the preferential qualification, then in such position, all the candidates who are having essential qualifications are eligible to apply and participate in the selection process and on the basis of the selection process where number of candidates are participating, when two or more candidates are having the equal marks, then in that case the preference shall be given, who is having the preferential qualification. Merely because, a candidate is possessing the preferential qualification would not give him any preferential right to be selected. In such view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner is that she was having preferential qualification, therefore, preference ought to have been given to her, is unfounded and cannot be sustained.
Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Another, ... vs Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao & Anr., Etc on 9 March, 1988
In Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao and another 1988 (2) SCC 386, the Apex Court has held that the rules framed under proviso to Article 309 shall override the conflicting recommendations/regulations framed under the Central Act. In this regard, the following observations made by the Apex Court, which would be relevant to take note of:-
Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986
In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644 : AIR 1986 SC 1043] it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.?
Anand Kumar Yadav And 2 Others vs Union Of India Thru Secy. And 4 Others on 12 September, 2015
In support of its submissions, Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Full Bench Judgement of this Court in Anand Kumar Yadav and Others vs. Union of India and Others : [2015 (8) ADJ 338 (FB)]. 6. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that pursuant to Section 36 of the Act, 1970, the regulations were framed in the year, 1986 which have been later amended in the year 2016, which prescribe the higher qualifications and also the degree of post-graduation for appointment to the post of Reader. Therefore, since the respondent no. 4 was not having the post-graduate qualification, she was not eligible for appointment and since the petitioner was having the post-graduate qualification she ought to have been given preference in the appointment as per the advertisement.
Ashish Kumar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 31 January, 2018
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 55 and submits that in part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescriptions, which reads as under:
Malik Mazhar Sultan vs U.P. Public Service Commission Through ... on 26 September, 2023
In this context, reference is made in the judgment of this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission [Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 9 SCC 507 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1870] . Para 21 of the judgment lays down the above proposition which is to the following effect: (SCC p. 512)
?21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 1-7-2001 and 1-7-2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisement but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the Rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules.?