Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.96 seconds)
Documents citing Brajendra Maharana And Ors. vs The Utkal University on 18 August, 1975

Ramlal Agarwala vs Sambalpur University on 16 January, 1981

Mr. Mohapatra for the University on the other hand relied upon another Bench decision of this Court in the case of Brajendra Maharana v. Utkal University, ILR (1975) Cut 1311: (AIR 1976 Orissa 25), where the content of natural justice applicable to a case of the present type has been indicated in a little different strain. Both the judgments are by the same learned Judge though the Benches were differently constituted. We do not think, it is necessary to enter into a consideration regarding which one lays down the law correctly for the purpose of disposing of the present case. Here the facts are simple. There is no allegation of detection of malpractice at the examination centre. The examiner while valuing the papers was of the opinion that the answer to Question No. 9 tallied in the answer papers of petitioner and the candidate with roll number 178. There is no material for the charge that petitioner copied from the other candidate. Merely on the premises that the answers tallied, there is no presumption that the petitioner copied from the other candidate's paper. It could as well have been the other way, that is, the other candidate may have copied from the petitioner.
Orissa High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Hansa Babulal Dave vs University Of Poona on 23 February, 1983

13. Now what precisely the authority concerned must comply with, in order to meet the minimal requirements of the principles of natural justice will depend on the facts of each case. We were informed that at present there are no ordinances or regulations framed by the University to regulate the initiation and subsequent modalities of disciplinary proceedings. Perhaps suitable provisions could be made by the University by framing proper ordinances etc. in accordance with law. Our attention was invited to a Division Bench ruling of the Orissa High Court reported in Brajendra Maharana v. The Utkal University , Here the two learned Judges after a detailed review of all the relevant rulings on the subject have summarised the principles succinctly in para, 8 of the judgment. Shall we say with respect that we agree with the propositions, as recapitulated by the learned Judges? We could do no better than reproduce them verbatim.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kum Saroj Meena vs R P S C Ajmer on 26 October, 2017

In the present case, no show cause notice was issued to the candidates. They were never called to appear before the respondent Commission to project their defence and their point of view. They were given no opportunity to project that the communication (Annx.R/1) received from the Additional Director General of Police, Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) and Special Operation Group (SOG), Jaipur, cannot be relied upon. Respondent Commission itself or through its unfair means committee or in house domestic inquiry committee have to act as a quasi-judicial body. After taking the entire case law into consideration, it has been rightly observed by the Division Bench of Orissa High Court in the case of Brajendra Maharana & Ors. (supra) that inquiry must be held to debar a candidate from future examination and this inquiry can be conducted by a domestic tribunal and the functions performed by such tribunal are of quasi-judicialcharacter. In the present petition, petitioners who are affected candidates were not apprised of charges of unfair means. They were not given opportunity to make representation and to explain the circumstances appearing against them. In the present case, principles of natural justice have not (8 of 9) [ CW-17279/2015] been followed.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hans Raj Meena vs R P S C Ajmer on 26 October, 2017

In the present case, no show cause notice was issued to the candidates. They were never called to appear before the respondent Commission to project their defence and their point of view. They were given no opportunity to project that the communication (Annx.R/1) received from the Additional Director General of Police, Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) and Special Operation Group (SOG), Jaipur, cannot be relied upon. Respondent Commission itself or through its unfair means committee or in house domestic inquiry committee have to act as a quasi-judicial body. After taking the entire case law into consideration, it has been rightly observed by the Division Bench of Orissa High Court in the case of Brajendra Maharana & Ors. (supra) that inquiry must be held to debar a candidate from future examination and this inquiry can be conducted by a domestic tribunal and the functions performed by such tribunal are of quasi-judicialcharacter. In the present petition, petitioners who are affected candidates were not apprised of charges of unfair means. They were not given opportunity to make representation and to explain the circumstances appearing against them. In the present case, principles of natural justice have not (8 of 9) [ CW-17279/2015] been followed.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manoj Kumar Meena vs R P S C Ajmer on 26 October, 2017

In the present case, no show cause notice was issued to the candidates. They were never called to appear before the respondent Commission to project their defence and their point of view. They were given no opportunity to project that the communication (Annx.R/1) received from the Additional Director General of Police, Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) and Special Operation Group (SOG), Jaipur, cannot be relied upon. Respondent Commission itself or through its unfair means committee or in house domestic inquiry committee have to act as a quasi-judicial body. After taking the entire case law into consideration, it has been rightly observed by the Division Bench of Orissa High Court in the case of Brajendra Maharana & Ors. (supra) that inquiry must be held to debar a candidate from future examination and this inquiry can be conducted by a domestic tribunal and the functions performed by such tribunal are of quasi-judicialcharacter. In the present petition, petitioners who are affected candidates were not apprised of charges of unfair means. They were not given opportunity to make representation and to explain the circumstances appearing against them. In the present case, principles of natural justice have not (8 of 9) [ CW-17279/2015] been followed.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Vaijayanti Meena vs R P S C Ajmer on 26 October, 2017

In the present case, no show cause notice was issued to the candidates. They were never called to appear before the respondent Commission to project their defence and their point of view. They were given no opportunity to project that the communication (Annx.R/1) received from the Additional Director General of Police, Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) and Special Operation Group (SOG), Jaipur, cannot be relied upon. Respondent Commission itself or through its unfair means committee or in house domestic inquiry committee have to act as a quasi-judicial body. After taking the entire case law into consideration, it has been rightly observed by the Division Bench of Orissa High Court in the case of Brajendra Maharana & Ors. (supra) that inquiry must be held to debar a candidate from future examination and this inquiry can be conducted by a domestic tribunal and the functions performed by such tribunal are of quasi-judicialcharacter. In the present petition, petitioners who are affected candidates were not apprised of charges of unfair means. They were not given opportunity to make representation and to explain the circumstances appearing against them. In the present case, principles of natural justice have not (8 of 9) [ CW-17279/2015] been followed.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1