Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.24 seconds)
Documents citing V.J. Sharmi vs The Secretary, Selection Committee, ... on 12 December, 2001

Poovizhi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 8 February, 2002

Here, the fees is not the criteria as the very object of the Scheme of improvement examination is to improve upon their previous performance and the same can be achieved only if sufficient time and opportunity is given for preparation for examinations. It is highly impossible and totally arbitrary to expect a student to prepare for the examinations in a matter of days while giving hopes to him all along, that he can write in subject/s of his choice. The learned Advocate General submits that even if there is no justification in imposing 'all subjects' examination theory for September 2001 students, there is ample time for March 2002 students and in that sense, the impugned G.O. cannot be termed arbitrary. For this proposition, he relies upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in V.J. SHARMI v. THE SECRETARY, SELECTION COMMITTEE, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER (W.A. No.2052 of 2001 Dated 12.12.2001). But the ratio in the said judgment is not applicable in these cases. The said case pertains to revaluation and under the Scheme, the student has to take risk of adopting the marks on revaluation even if there is a decrease in the said marks. The facts in the said case have got absolutely no bearing here. The students were made to believe by notification dated 24.6.2001 that they could write improvement examination in the subject/s of their choice as was being permitted in the years before. Had these March 2002 examinees knew about the change in policy, they would have certainly appeared for September 2001 examination and on issuance of the impugned G.O. of 12.9.2001, there was absolutely no chance for them to opt for September 2001 examination for the reason that the last date for payment of fees was 11.7.2001. So, it is not possible to dissect the examinees of March 2002 examination from those of September 2001 examination. All things being equal, both for examinees of September 2001 and March 2002, they are all similarly placed and as such, they are to be similarly treated in order to satisfy the equality and equal protection clauses enshrined in Article 14 of Indian Constitution. To sustain the plea of the petitioners, only 'doctrine of legitimate expectation' can help, which, in fact, has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners but very vehemently countered by the learned Advocate General. We will now consider whether this batch of cases deserves the application of legitimate expectation theory.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Poovizhi vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. on 6 February, 2002

Waiver of fees for the balance of examinations not opted for, is no solace at all here, the fees is not the criteria as the very object of the Scheme of improvement examination is to improve upon their previous performance and the same can be achieved only if sufficient time and opportunity is given for preparation for examinations. It is highly impossible and totally arbitrary to expect a student to prepare for the examinations in a matter of days while giving hopes to him all along, that he can write in subjects of his choice. The learned Advocate General submits that even if there is no justification in imposing 'all subjects' examination theory for September 2001 students, there is ample time for March 2002 students and in that sense, the impugned G.O. cannot be termed arbitrary. For this proposition, he relies upon the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in V.J. Sharmi v. The Secretary, Selection Committee, Chennai (W.A. No. 2052 of 2001 Dated 12-12-2001). But the ratio in the said judgment is not applicable in these cases. The said case pertains to revalutlon and under the Scheme, the student has to take risk of adopting the marks on revaluation even if there is a decrease in the said marks. The facts in the said case have got absolutely no bearing here. The students were made to believe by notification dated 24-6-2001 that they could write improvement examination in the subjects of their choice as was being permitted in the years before, had these March 2002 examinees knew about the change in policy, they would have certainly appeared for September 2001 examination and on issuance of the impugend G.O. of 12-9-2001, there was absolutely no chance for them to opt for September 2001 examination for the reason that the last date for payment of fees was 11-7-2001. So, it is not possible to dissect the examinees of March 2002 examination from those of September 2001 examination. All things being equal, both for examinees of September 2001 and March 2002, they are all similarly placed, and as such, they are to be similarly treated in order to satisfy the equality and equal protection clauses enshrined in Article 14 of Indian Constitution. To sustain the plea of the petitioners, only 'doctrine of legitimate expectation' can help, which. In fact, has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners but very vehemently countered by the learned Advocate General. We will now consider whether this batch of cases deserves" the application of legitimate expectation theory.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Pa. Niranzena (Minor) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002

13. It is also relevant to refer the recent decision of the Hon' ble First Bench of this Court in the case of V.J.Sharmi vs. Secretary, Selection Committee, Chennai reported in AIR 2002 Madras 269, wherein the condition prescribed in latter Government Order, namely, G.O.Ms. No.77 dated 07.05.2001 was questioned. The argument before the Bench is that the Government is not justified in considering decrease in mark when the candidate is applied for revaluation. Rejecting the said contention, the Hon'ble Chief Justice speaking for the Bench has observed, " 4. ..... The facility given by the State is by an executive order and which is traceable to Art.162 of the Indian Constitution and students, are given choice to apply for revaluation as a whole and cannot ask only a particular answer to be revaluated. There is no provision for para wise revaluation. In fact, as per the Scheme, the appellant has sought for revaluation, which is in format and that is for whole. In this context, it is relevant to state that it is not within the realm of the Courts to examine the merits and demerits of a policy laid down by the Government.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Minor Madhavi Represented vs The Secretary on 9 September, 2008

9. The validity of the scheme for revaluation introduced by the State of Tamil Nadu came to be challenged in proceedings that culminated in the decision V.J.Sharmi Vs. Secretary, Selection Committee Chennai and another reported in AIR 2002 Madras 269. When the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the particular provision in the scheme which enabled the student to apply for revaluation it said, "there is no scope to dissect the scheme and allow a student to choose only some answers to be revalued. It is different thing if some of the answers, have not been valued and no marks assigned to them as against them. In that case, a student may ask those questions to be valued and such answers do not come within the purview of revaluation". They were repelling a contention placed on behalf of the student that particular answers may alone be valued and not the entire paper which in the case had resulted in securing less marks than the original marks obtained, which was obviously inconvenient to the student. This is stated only to bring home the point that a student on whose behalf an application is made for revaluation will be bound by a scheme and cannot insist that particular revaluation when done and not found fruitful and even resulted in awarding of less marks, such a candidate cannot make a volte face and seek that the marks where there have been an increase would alone be retained and whichever paper on revaluation resulted in less marks, it can be discarded and the original marks themselves should be retained.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - K Kannan - Full Document
1