Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.34 seconds)

Saket Kumar And 3 Ors vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors on 29 May, 2015

In paragraphs 15 and 16, it has been asserted that in various objective examinations like Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi and Union Public Service Commission, Allahabad, there is no mechanism whereby OMR sheet wherein the prohibited substances like Whitener/ Blade/Eraser etc. have been used, are identified or segregated or the candidates using such prohibited substances are subjected to any disqualification or penalty or rejection of their candidature. It has been further stated that option to a candidate to change his answer is only based on his personal discretion and the same in no manner increases chance of his success, which ultimately depends on the over all performance of the candidate at different stages of examination. The need of urgency in finalizing the selection has been highlighted in the light of unfilled vacancies on various posts as the selection process involved in the present litigation is continuing since the year 2011 and four years have already passed in the light of the judgement of this Court in Criminal Writ (PIL) No. 1797 of 2011 (Mohammad Qasim vs. State of UP and others).
Allahabad High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 5 - V K Birla - Full Document

Qasim vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 December, 2019

This revision is directed against the order dated 15.5.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Hapur in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2018 (Qasim vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 29.10.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Hapur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Case No. 15 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.73 of 2018, under Sections 376-D I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Hafizpur, District- Hapur rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Bhargava - Full Document
1