Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.58 seconds)
Documents citing D. Shylaja vs The Secretary To Government on 15 June, 2004

S. Senthil Kumar vs The Secretary on 31 July, 2008

(p) Similar issue with regard to the wrong questions or wrong key answers or more than one answer is correct for one question with regard to the entrance examination conducted for MBBS and BDS course for the academic year 2004-2005 was considered by this Court in the decision reported in 2004 WLR 639 (D.Shylaja v. The Secretary to Government & Others). In paragraph 52 this Court directed the Anna University to re-value the answer papers for certain questions, though under the scheme revaluation was not permitted, which reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - N N Vasanthakumar - Full Document

A.Eswaramoorthy vs The Secretary To Government on 4 November, 2009

(p) Similar issue with regard to the wrong questions or wrong key answers or more than one answer is correct for one question with regard to the entrance examination conducted for MBBS and BDS course for the academic year 2004-2005 was considered by this Court in the decision reported in 2004 WLR 639 (D.Shylaja v. The Secretary to Government & Others). In paragraph 52 this Court directed the Anna University to re-value the answer papers for certain questions, though under the scheme revaluation was not permitted, which reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

K.Nirmal vs The Chairman on 7 March, 2014

17. Students who have passed their Intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance Test for admission to the medical colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from what is contained in those textbooks. Those textbooks support the case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong." (p) Similar issue with regard to the wrong questions or wrong key answers or more than one answer is correct for one question with regard to the entrance examination conducted for MBBS and BDS course for the academic year 2004-2005 was considered by this Court in the decision reported in 2004 WLR 639 (D.Shylaja v. The Secretary to Government & Others). In paragraph 52 this Court directed the Anna University to re-value the answer papers for certain questions, though under the scheme revaluation was not permitted, which reads as follows: "52. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed in part. The University is directed to revalue all the answer papers. Question Nos.27 and 33 in Biology question paper in version code MA-7, question Nos.11, 64 and 77 of version code BS6 relating to physical science shall not be deleted and mark should be awarded to any student who has indicated any of the correct choices. It is further directed question No.76 in version code BS6 should be evaluated and credit should be given to the students who have given the correct option as per the key answer provided by the paper setter. Question No.105 in version code MA-7 is to be revalued and option No.4 should be taken as the correct answer and not option No.3 as indicated by the committee. Question No.117 in version code BS6 should be deleted from consideration. The necessary revaluation may be done within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and revised marks may be furnished to the selection committee immediately to enable the selection committee to finalise the selection. The selection committee may fix suitable dates for counselling. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."
Madras High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document

Rishabh Duggal vs Registrar General Delhi High Court on 20 March, 2024

He also referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in D. Shylaja v. The Secretary to Government, Education Department & Ors.: W.P (C) 14587/2004 decided on 15.06.2004 and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in R. Krishan Kumar v. Convener, EAMCET 1998 JNT University, Hyderabad: 1998 SCC OnLine AP 425 in support of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT W.P.(C) Nos. 2342/2024 & 2462/2024 Page 6 of 36 RAWAL Signing Date:20.03.2024 his contention. He also countered the submissions that the answers set out in the Revised Answer Key were erroneous. The same have been discussed separately in the context of each question.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Shashank Deo Pandey & Ors. vs Delhi High Court Through Registrar ... on 20 March, 2024

He also referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in D. Shylaja v. The Secretary to Government, Education Department & Ors.: W.P (C) 14587/2004 decided on 15.06.2004 and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in R. Krishan Kumar v. Convener, EAMCET 1998 JNT University, Hyderabad: 1998 SCC OnLine AP 425 in support of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT W.P.(C) Nos. 2342/2024 & 2462/2024 Page 6 of 36 RAWAL Signing Date:20.03.2024 his contention. He also countered the submissions that the answers set out in the Revised Answer Key were erroneous. The same have been discussed separately in the context of each question.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Minor Madhavi Represented vs The Secretary on 9 September, 2008

In B.Shylaja Vs. Secretary (2004 WLR P.639) this High Court dealt with the extraordinary situation where there were hundred of writ petitions filed at the instance of affected students when several questions had been asked which were outside the syllabus in Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Entrance Examination, 2004. The contentions were also that the key answers given were themselves wrong or there could have been more than one set of correct options for answers and consequently the valuation proved defective. The Court found prima facie material to be convinced of the defects in the key answers when the important question to be resolved was whether even questions should be deleted from consideration or whether marks should be awarded to the students who had indicated any of the correct options. The reliance by the counsel on this was to bring support to his argument that it was open for the Court to re-examine the valuation made subsequently. Such an exercise in my view simply does not avail here, only because it is nobody's case that key answers were wrong and the answers given could have been evaluated differently without reference to the key answers. As pointed out already, this was a case where the Court granted the extraordinary relief of further revaluation after the writ petition was filed and only when further revaluation did not improve the case of the petitioner any better the petitioner turns the tables on the respondent and contends that the child was being victimised by awarding lesser marks for the only reason that revaluation had been sought for. Such a contention flies in the face of higher marks having been awarded in Chemistry. If the attempt is to victimise, there could have been no scope for awarding higher marks in one subject alone. I am firmly of the view that the revaluation of the papers have been correctly undertaken and there is no room for assailing the technical exercise undertaken by the experts.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - K Kannan - Full Document
1