Rajesh Dhingra vs Central Board Of Secondary Education ... on 8 September, 2015
The discussion with respect to this aspect of
the matter is contained in paragraph 7 and 8 of the judgement in Samarth
Mittal's case.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)Documents citing
Samarth Mittal vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 July, 2015
Ananya Singh vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 2 August, 2016
9. The decision in the case of Samarth Mittal (supra), in my view,
squarely covers the case in favour of the petitioner. The learned Single
Judge, in the said judgment, held as under:-
Shaurya Gulati vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 13 June, 2016
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the
paper book and of the view that once bye-laws do not envisage any restriction
of revaluation, CBSE cannot on its own put fetter restricted qua one paper,
permitting in others. This view of mine is fortified with the judgment rendered
by Delhi High Court in Samarth Mittal's case (Supra), wherein identical
situation has arisen and the CBSE has been directed to conduct the revaluation
of theory paper of Physical Education as per bye-laws (Annexure P-3). Even
otherwise, once the respondent has permitted to revaluation of the subjects
mentioned in the following subjects:-
Karmanya vs Cbse And Anr on 15 June, 2016
The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the similar writ petition
in CWP No. 12420 of 2016, Shaurya Gulati vs. Central Board of Secondary
Education dated 13.6.2016, relying upon the decision of the Delhi High
Court in Samarth Mittal vs. Union of India and others, 2015 (6) AD (Delhi
1 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 16-06-2016 00:04:54 :::
C.W.P No. 12548 of 2016 -2-
498, held that CBSE cannot restrict for revaluation subjects when the bye-
laws do not envisage any such restriction of revaluation. There was also no
plausible reason for discriminating the candidate who appeared for Physical
Education paper in the matter of revaluation.
Harsimran Kaur Mann And Others vs Cbse And Another on 23 June, 2016
Learned proxy counsel for the respondents submitted that the
above decision of the Delhi High Court would only apply in a case where
the candidate had applied for revaluation within the time prescribed by the
CBSE. Counsel for the writ petitioner suitably replied to the above
submission to the effect that inasmuch as Physical Education and Computer
Science had not been notified as subjects which could be revaluated in
terms of above letter dated 24.05.2016, the mandatory online application
attempted to be submitted did not receive acceptance.
1