Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 230 (1.30 seconds)
Documents citing Board Of High School & Intermediate ... vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others on 6 February, 1962

Rabindra Kumar Rout vs General Manager N C Rly on 22 February, 2021

Compliance with the rule of audi alteram partem is not necessary not only in the cases of employment of 'unfair means on large scale' but also situations where there is a 'leakage of papers' or 'destruction of some of the answer books' etc. This Court drew a distinction between action against an individual student on the ground that the student had resorted to unfair means in the examination and the cancellation of the examination on the whole (or with reference to a group of students) because the process itself is vitiated......" The key point in the citation is that compliance with the rule of audi alteram partem is not necessary in the cases of employment of 'unfair means'and the citation nowhere gives protection of the rule of audi alteram partum for pardoning use of unfair or unethical means by an examinee. Likewise in the present case we find that, we cannot overlook the fact that the applicant did err in the matter of making an unwanted, illegal and impermissible identification marking in his answer sheet. That this illegality had the potential of leading to adoption of unfair means and so, therefore, in the instant matter also, we are unable to agree to the need for blind adherence to the principle of audi alteram partum by way of giving any show cause notice / opportunity of hearing to the examinees whenever there is a reason not to declare the result for an irrefutable wrong done by the examinee during the course of writing his answers. Page 32 of 42 CAT ALLAHABAD BENCH Rabindra Kumar Rout vs UoI OA 006/2021 10.2 As regards the citation concerning Board Of High School & ... vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others in which judgement was delivered on 6 February, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 1110, 1962 SCR Supl.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K. Krishnappa vs Registrar Evaluation on 9 October, 1991

"If, on the report by the Vigilance Squad that there had been mass copying or malpractice in the examination hall concerned, the University had proceeded to cancel the performance of all the candidates who took examination in that hall without reference to any individual students, and to hold a fresh examination in the subject concerned for all such students, the contention of the learned Counsel for the University would have been unexceptionable in view of the ratio of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL v. GHANSHYAM . But in the present case, what the University had done was not the cancellation of the performance of all the students at the examination on the ground that there had been a report of mass malpractice but the action was taken against 38 candidates individually in that charge memo was served on each of them and they were called upon to appear before the Mal-practices Enquiry Committee and they were interrogated by the Committee and thereafter the Committee submitted its report recording a finding that 28 of them committed malpractice and 10 did not. That report was accepted by the Vice-Chancellor and orders were passed. Though the names of all the 28 students are set out in the same communication, it is an order passed against each of the students. Each of the students is found guilty of malpractice and the penalty imposed is cancellation of performance of the particular examination. It is a fundamental rule of natural justice that no person can be found guilty of any charge or no order can be passed which has got evil or civil consequences unless it is preceded by the holding of an enquiry in that giving full opportunity to defend himself by adducing evidence in support of the charge before the authority holding the enquiry and giving full opportunity to the person against whom an enquiry is being held to cross-examine the witnesses who gave evidence against him or giving opportunity to cross-examine the persons who had made report against him. All these safeguards are incorporated in the Ordinance framed by the University for holding an enquiry. It is not disputed that in these cases no enquiry in accordance with the said ordinance had been held. This is also the finding recorded by the learned single Judge. But the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that this was a case where no individual enquiry was necessary. We are unable to agree. This is a case in which the University has found each of the students guilty of malpractice and on that basis imposed penalty of cancellation of the performance of the examination against each of the students. An exactly similar situation was considered by this Court in W.P.No. 1502 of 1979 and connected cases in which the Karnataka University had imposed penalty against as many as 30 students without holding an enquiry on the ground that there was a report about mass-copying. In that case, also the University relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court has held that for cancellation of examination on any ground, the principles of natural justice would not be applicable. That case was distinguished by this Court and pointed out that if the University had proceeded to cancel the performance of all the students in any particular examination centre and decided to hold re-examination, the question of applying rules of natural justice does not arise because the power of the University to hold the examination necessarily includes the power to cancel the performance of the entire examination and to hold re-examination if the given situation demands such a course of action. On this reasoning, orders impugned in the said Writ Petition were quashed. The position is not different in these cases. Therefore, we respectfully agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge."
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S V Patil - Full Document

S.H. Joseph Thabaraj vs The Prinicipal, Government Arts ... on 13 October, 1966

582, and Board of High School v. Ghanshyam (1963) 2 S.C.J. 509 : A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1110, there can be no doubt that the duties of a Principal in dismissing a student fall within the rule laid down in Ridge v. Baldwin L.R. (1964) A.C. 40, and A.C. Co. P.N. Sharma (1966) 1 S.C.J. 786 : (1965) 2 S.C.R. 366 : A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1595, 1601, and he is bound to observe principles of natural justice.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

Suresh Chandra Sharma vs Delhi Library Board on 7 November, 1969

Further, in Board of High School Vs. G. D. Gupta and Board of Revenue Vs. Vidyawati, the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "Now it may be mentioned that the statute is nto likely to provide in so many words that the authority passing the order is required to act judicially; that can only be inferred from the express provisions of the statute in the first instance in each case and no one circumstance alone will be determinative of the question whether the authority set up by the statute has the duty to act judicially or not. The inference whether the authority acting under a statute where it is silent has the duty to act judicially will depend on the express provisions of the statute read along with the nature of the rights affected, the manner of the disposal provided, the objective criterion if any to be adopted, the effect of the decision on the person affected and other indicia afforded by the statute."
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V. Ramiah vs The State Bank Of India By Its Secretary ... on 23 December, 1966

L.J. 94 : (1964) 1 S.C.J. 272, again relates to an invalid termination of contract, pertinent to an in industrial dispute Board of High School v. Ghanshyam , is authority or the view that if a statutory body has power to do an act, which will prejudicially affect the subject, them, although there are not two parties, apart from the authority, and the contest is between the authority and the subject, the final determination of the authority will yet be a quasi-judicial act, provided, the authority is required to act judicially. This decision does not apply to the facts of the present controversy for it is indisputable that if the determination be for misconduct, in substance and verity the matter is at an end. The authority was bound to act quasi-judicially and in confirmity with the Rules framed by itself for observance in such matters of disciplinary jurisdiction; if the principle, of natural justice were infringed, the writ should issue.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nidhi Kaim vs State Of M P And Ors Etc on 12 May, 2016

14. Reliance was placed upon Ghanshyam Das Gupta case to which we referred earlier. There the examination results of three candidates were cancelled, and this Court held that they should have received an opportunity of explaining their conduct. It was said that even if the inquiry involved a large number of persons, the Committee should frame proper regulations for the conduct of such inquiries but not deny the opportunity. We do not think that that case has any application. Surely it was not intended that where the examination as a whole was vitiated, say by leakage of papers or by destruction of some of the answer books or by discovery of unfair means practised on a vast scale that an inquiry would be made giving a chance to every one appearing at that examination to have his say? What the Court intended to lay down was that if any particular person was to be proceeded against, he must have a proper chance to defend himself and this did not obviate the necessity of giving an opportunity even though the number of persons proceeded against was large. The Court was then not considering the right of an examining body to cancel its own examination when it was satisfied that the examination was not properly conducted or that in the conduct of the examination the majority of the examinees had not conducted themselves as they should have. To make such decisions depend upon a full-
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Kundurthi Venkat Rao And Others vs Nallamothu Venkateswarlu And Others on 8 July, 1991

14. The ruling in Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta concerns cancellation of examinations involving serious lapses like impersonation and fraud. It was held that the disciplinary authority should act judicially in dealing with the rights of examinees, and this ruling does not apply to the facts of the present case.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next