Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 155 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors vs Dr. Anupam Gupta Etc on 13 February, 1992

State Through Cbi vs . Anupam Rajan Etc. on 31 August, 2013

It was alleged further in the charge sheet that the examination was conducted in two separate sessions i.e. from 9.30 am to 11.30 am being the session meant of optional subject i.e. Sociology and from 2.30 pm to 4.30 pm being session meant for the compulsory subject i.e. General Studies and one Smt. Neera Sharma, working as Section Officer with the Ministry of Agriculture and Mrs. T. Bannerjee, one of the school teachers were deputed as Invigilator and co­invigilator in the said room where accused persons were taking their exams and one Sh. P. Parmeshwaram was the Superintendent of the said examination centre. The question paper was of multiple choice answers and question booklets were printed in four different series i.e. A, B, C and D and candidates were distributed with the question booklets of the aforesaid series in a sequence so that none of the two candidates sitting adjacent to each other should get the same set of questions. Each of the question booklet was carrying 150 questions having four alternative answers provided within the question booklet itself and the candidates were provided with the single leaf answer sheet on which they were supposed to write in a horizontal manner for mentioning the name of Centre, Subject Code and Subject name alongwith their respective roll number. Each answer sheet was also given a printed serial number and it was also required to be initialed by the invigilator after satisfying himself/herself regarding the RC No. 4 (S)/93 State Vs. Anupam Rajan 3/44 correctness of the particulars filled up by the candidates. The candidates were supposed to darken the circles appearing on the answer sheet after selecting the most appropriate answer for a particular question from the choice provided within the question booklet against the said particular question itself.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Title State vs . Alam @ Shanay Etc. on 22 March, 2023

17. To prove its case, prosecution has cited as many as fifteen witnesses. However, the first informant/rightful owner of the property is not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, in the absence of testimony of complainant, the recovery of the stolen article alleged to have been from the accused Alam @ Shanay does not connect him with the crime as no evidence is adduced by the prosecution to show that the motorcycle had, in fact, been stolen from the possession of the complainant or that the same belonged to him. The factum of theft could have been proved only by the complainant. He could not be examined in Court by the prosecution despite giving numerous Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI FIR No. 130/2011 State Vs. Alam Etc. page9 of 10 TYAGI Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . 1. Anupam S/O Shyam Singh, on 11 August, 2011

State Vs. Anupam etc. PS Aman Vihar FIR No.296/10 2 "That he was running a auto part shop at Rama Vihar, Delhi. Yesterday, on 04.10.2010, at around 10:00 p.m, he was present at his house, at that time, his brother Monu made a call to him and he told him that he and his friend Rinku had a quarrel with Akhilesh Tiwari over money transaction and Akhilesh Tiwari had slapped Rinku. Thereafter, he told Monu that he was reaching the said place.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shaik Nurbi vs Pathan Mastanbi And Ors. on 23 March, 2004

38. With regard to the judgment in State of U.P. v. Anupam Gupta (supra), learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the matter purely arose under Article 226 of Constitution of India. It is settled principle of law that enquiry under Section 100 C.P.C. is limited. Moreover, the Supreme Court held that a new plea which is purely a question of law arising from the record can be considered for the first time in appeal.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - E D Rao - Full Document

Dr. Vineet Singh And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 22 December, 1998

'The fact that the power relating to the conduct of entrance examination and the norms governing the entrance examination are within the exclusive prerogative of the State Government, is evident from the observations in Dr. Sadhna Devi's case (AIR 1997 SC 1120) (supra) as also in the case of State of U.P. v. Anupam Gupta, 1993 (Supp) 1 SCC 594, wherein the scheme in respect of the entrance examination was prescribed by the U.P. Government and not by the University. Even in Rajasthan, the entrance examinations are conducted by the Government of Rajasthan. The Supreme Court clearly laid down that the ultimate power to fix the norms for admission to post-graduate medical courses is vested with the State Government. Thus, the apparent conflict between 0.278-E and the Government's executive instructions, is totally misconceived one and cannot stand as a bar to the fixation of a minimum norm as qualifying of 50% marks for due qualification. We do not find any conflict in between Order 278-E and the executive instructions to be militating against each other, because Order 278-E only controls the norms of eligibility and the executive instructions are regarding the fixation of qualifying marks despite the eligibility. The Ordinance is silent on the issue of the qualifying marks for entrance examination and it is not all pervasive in character with regard to the norms of qualification. It is a well settled proposition of law that when there are gaps existing in the statute or a statutory rule, it can be so filled up by way of executive instructions. We do not think that the prescription of qualifying marks can be declared invalid on the ground that the same is contrary to Order 278-E.'
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Smt Pilla Suneetha vs The Andhra Pradesh Public Service ... on 8 February, 2024

3. The matter again came up for consideration before this Court and in State of U.P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta [1993 Supp (1) SCC 594] it was held as under : (SCC p. 601, para 9) „9. ... Thus it could be seen that this Court consistently laid down the criteria for conducting entrance examination to the postgraduate degree and diploma courses in medicine and the best among the talented candidates would be eligible for admission. 50% cut-off marks was also held to be valid to achieve excellence in postgraduate speciality. Accordingly we uphold the prescription of 50% cut-off marks for general candidates and 40% for SCs and STs together with 1.65% weightage of total marks i.e. 50 marks in total in entrance examination as constitutional and valid.‟ 15 GN, J. & VN, J.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next