Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 97 (2.04 seconds)
Documents citing Taniya Malik vs Registrar General Of The High Court Of ... on 16 February, 2018

Ajay Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 13 February, 2020

16. On the other hand, the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore v. G. Hemalatha (supra), Orissa Public Service Commission v. Rupashree Chowdhary (supra) and Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of The High W.P.(C) 7435/2019 Page 7 of 8 Court of Delhi (supra), which are specific to the context of marks obtained in a qualifying examination, categorically hold that rounding off of marks is not permissible in the absence of rules that permit it. In the present case too, no rule has been shown to the Court that permits such rounding off of the marks in the qualifying LL.B exam.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Rahul Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 7 June, 2021

77. Similarly, so far as the stand of the JPSC and State with regard to minimum qualifying marks in each paper is concerned, the same has got no leg to stand because on the vehement argument of the JPSC and the State, coordinate Bench has interpreted Clause-13 of the advertisement on the basis of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taniya Malik (supra).
Jharkhand High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

Rahul Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 7 June, 2021

77. Similarly, so far as the stand of the JPSC and State with regard to minimum qualifying marks in each paper is concerned, the same has got no leg to stand because on the vehement argument of the JPSC and the State, coordinate Bench has interpreted Clause-13 of the advertisement on the basis of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taniya Malik (supra).
Jharkhand High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

Abhimeet Sinha vs High Court Of Judicature At Patna on 6 May, 2024

In Ajay Hasia(supra) the challenge was to the validity of admissions made to the 29 KH Siraj v High Court of Kerela (2006) 6 SCC 395; State of UP v Rafiquiddin, 1987 Supp SCC 410; Taniya Malik v Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi,(2018) 14 SCC 129; Pranav Verma v The Registrar General of High Court (2020) 15 SCC 377 30 (2018) 14 SCC 129 Page 35 of 59 Regional Engineering College for the academic year 1979-80. Out of 150 total marks, 50 marks were earmarked for interview. Commenting on the validity of viva voce as a permissible test, the Court observed thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - H Roy - Full Document

Shishir Tigga vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 23 February, 2022

10. In the instant case, the petitioners could not secure the minimum cutoff marks in the paper which talked of Jharkhand as a whole. The candidates having not even the knowledge about State of Jharkhand where they are going to be appointed as a Civil Services Officers, rightly have not been selected as they did not even qualify and have not obtained the minimum qualifying marks. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners distinguishing the judgment passed in case of Tanya Malik (supra) on the ground that in the said case minimum qualifying marks was mentioned in the advertisement but in the present case, the same has not been mentioned in the advertisement, does not find favour as 40% marks in each of the paper was the policy decision of the State and the same was adopted in all the preliminary test examinations as uniform pattern by the JPSC and also in view of the fact that already revised results have been published on more than two occasions and date of Mains Examination has also been fixed. Further, the examination conducted by the JPSC has already been delayed due to filing of different writ petitions from time to time. As such, this Court restrain itself from interfering in the matter of policy decision of the State Govt. and thus, I find no illegality in not declaring the candidates (present petitioners) qualified, who failed to obtain minimum qualifying marks as per the specifications indicated in para-3 aforesaid.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - R Ranjan - Full Document

Vrushali Vilas Kuchekar vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission ... on 17 March, 2021

(a) of Service Rules now. The petitioner is estopped from challenging the validity of the said Rule. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Taniya Malik (supra) applies to the facts of this case. We are respectfully bound by the said judgment. In our view, considering the importance of the interview in the process of appointment of a candidate on any judicial post, not granting the 18/21 relaxation in marks as granted to a schedule caste or schedule tribe candidate in written examination while passing viva-voce examination is intentional and justified.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Anjani Parashar And Anr vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 22 February, 2019

The petitioners have also relied on the judgment in the case of Taniya Malik vs. Registrar General of High Court of Delhi reported in (2018) 14 SCC 129 to contend that the process of moderation has been reiterated. Paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of Patna High Court CWJC No.20119 of 2018 dt.22-02-2019 13/20 the report are dedicated to the said issue and in that case it was found that since only one examiner had evaluated the same part of one question, the question of moderation did not arise.
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next