Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Dheeru @ Dheeraj Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 December, 2014

Manvendra Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 4 August, 2015

The Division Bench of this Court in 2014 (3) MPLJ 147 (Dheeraj Pandey and another v. State of M.P. & Ors.) opined that unless and until prima- facie case is made out to show that answer-sheets were not valued properly, interference cannot be made. It cannot be made merely on the basis of vague and unspecified allegations. The candidate should obtain copy under the RTI Act to demonstrate that valuation was not done properly. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to discharge this burden.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Neeraj Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 23 December, 2015

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities of the respondent No.1 & 2 to consider and decide the aforesaid pending representation of the petitioners Annexure P-3 keeping in view the concerning rules, regulations, notifications, 3 WP No. 8501/2015 Neeraj Pandey and Others Vs. State of MP circulars and the scheme, if any, promulgated in this regard, within ninety days from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order along with copy of the petition and annexures in the office of the authorities of such respondents by the petitioners.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sonam Yadav vs Central Board Of Secondary Education ... on 8 January, 2016

4. The question is whether any direction can be issued for revaluation of the answer sheets in the facts of present case. The petitioner has not chosen to file the copy of the answer sheet. A Division Bench of this Court in 2014 (3) MPLJ 147 (Dheeraj Pandey and another vs State of M.P.) has held that unless a prima- facie case is made out to show that answer sheets were not valued properly, merely on the basis of vague and unspecified allegations, no direction can be issued to revaluate the answer sheets. This Court opined that the student should apply and obtain the copy of answer sheet and then demonstrate about illegality in the matter of evaluation. In absence thereof, no mandamus can be issued. The petitioner has not filed any material to show that evaluation of answer sheet in the subject of Mathematics was improper or arbitrary. Merely, because the petitioner has got more marks in other subjects, it cannot be presumed that his answer sheet in the subject of Mathematics was improperly evaluated. This is a matter of common knowledge that a student may be good in other subjects but may be weak in the subject of Mathematics. In other words, there is no presumption that if a student has got good marks in other subjects, he should get good marks in Mathematics as well.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rinu Agrawal vs Rani Durgavati University, Jabalpur on 25 July, 2017

The Division Bench of this court in Dheeraj Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P -2014(3) MPLJ-147 held that unless and until a case is made out to show that answer sheets were not valued properly, merely on the basis of vague and unspecified allegations, no directions can be issued to revaluate the answer sheets. This court further observed that under RTI Act, the student can obtain the answer sheets and demonstrate the illegality (if any). When petitioner fails to discharge its burden, no direction can be issued on the basis of vague allegations unsupported by any cogent material.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dheeraj Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 April, 2018

Learned counsel for petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.; wherein, she has stated that she was in love with the petitioner and had accompanied him to aforesaid places, where they lived as husband and wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the prosecutrix was technically a minor, she had attained the age of knowledge and understanding and had accompanied the petitioner of her own free will and accord. The petitioner has been in custody since 04.3.2018 and the 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR M.Cr.C. No. 10211/2018 (Dheeraj Kumar Vs. State) charge-sheet in the matter has been filed; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ku. Sarika Tiwari vs Registrar on 12 September, 2017

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that answer- sheet of the petitioner in the subject of "Teacher in Emerging Indian Society Internal" was not properly evaluated. The petitioner has not filed the answer-sheet and the model answer- sheet alongwith this petition. Thus, there is no material on record to substantiate the vague allegations. A Division Bench of this Court in 2014 (3) MPLJ 147 (Dheeraj Pandey vs. State of M.P. and others) opined that on the basis of vague and unspecified allegations and without obtaining copies under the RTI Act, the writ petition cannot be entertained. In absence of any material to substantiate the allegations, interference is declined. However, this order will not come in the way of the petitioner in filing an appropriate petition alongwith the relevant documents.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next