Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)
Amrit Raj vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 August, 2018 cites

District Collector And Chairman ... vs M. Tripura Sundari Devi on 20 April, 1990

"13. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar1, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra 2, District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi3, Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan 4, M.V. Nair (Dr) v. Union of India 5 and U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad v. Alpana6 the High Court has held (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by Patna High Court CWJC No.16526 of 2017 dt.08-08-2018 4/10 which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with. However, there are certain special features of this case which need to be taken care of and justice be done by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 715 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi vs University Of Rajasthan And Ors on 13 January, 1993

"13. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar1, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra 2, District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi3, Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan 4, M.V. Nair (Dr) v. Union of India 5 and U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad v. Alpana6 the High Court has held (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by Patna High Court CWJC No.16526 of 2017 dt.08-08-2018 4/10 which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with. However, there are certain special features of this case which need to be taken care of and justice be done by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 328 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Sharma And Anr. vs Chander Shekher And Anr. on 18 December, 1992

"14. A review application was filed which was admitted. The matter was again placed before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar2. One of the issues which fell for consideration of the Bench being Issue 1 reads as under: (SCC p. 21, para 5) "(1) Whether the view taken by the majority (Hon'ble Dr. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ.) that it is enough for a candidate to be qualified by the date of interview even if he was not qualified by the last date prescribed for receiving the applications, is correct in law and whether the majority was right in extending the principle of Rule 37 of the Public Service Commission Rules to the present case by analogy?"
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 218 - Full Document

Dr. M.V. Nair vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 January, 1993

Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Patna High Court CWJC No.16526 of 2017 dt.08-08-2018 7/10 Tripura Sundari Devi 6, Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan3, M.V. Nair (Dr.) v. Union of India 7 and U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana 8 the High Court has held (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 152 - Full Document

U.P. Public Service Commission vs Alpana on 17 January, 1994

Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Patna High Court CWJC No.16526 of 2017 dt.08-08-2018 7/10 Tripura Sundari Devi 6, Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan3, M.V. Nair (Dr.) v. Union of India 7 and U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana 8 the High Court has held (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 192 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document
1   2 Next