Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing Jitender Kumar And Another vs Haryana Public Service Commission on 30 August, 2012

Ashwani Kumar Mehta & Others vs State Of Punjab & Others on 5 September, 2013

In Jitender Kumar's case (supra), the learned Single Bench was seized of the action of the Haryana Public Service Commission granting marks to the candidates with reference to wrong questions in the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services Preliminary Examination. It was argued that the Commission did not have the jurisdiction to award grace marks and, therefore, once such a mistake is found, the Commission had no option but to hold a fresh paper. It was under these circumstances, this Court observed that the first stage that is multi-choice questions in the preliminary examination is for the purposes of screening only and that the responsibility to conduct the preliminary examination and subsequently the main examination and personality test is upon the Commission and that even if there is no specific power conferred upon the Commission, it is not powerless to take appropriate steps/action as and when any such situation arises. The Court also found that the action of the Commission to delete the questions, which were found to be discrepant and granting marks to the candidates for the said questions, is justified as the paper was common to all the candidates and no prejudice has been caused to them. The letters patent appeal against such order remained unsuccessful.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 11 - H Gupta - Full Document

Ramandeep Kaur vs Counsel Of Scientific Industrisal ... on 28 September, 2017

However, in Jitender Kumar case (supra) this Court held that the objections should not be referred to the original paper setter but to independent experts. In my opinion, the original paper setter cannot be completely dissociated from any process by which his questions/answers are being evaluated and has a duty as well as a right to respond to the objections and that response must also be forwarded to the independent experts. As a matter of fact in one such exam for the Judicial Services held by this Court, an objection regarding one particular question was filed and in support thereof reference was made to one decision of the Privy Council. That objection was accepted. However, it later transpired that there was a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court which held the field. After that episode this Court initiated a process whereby all the objections to the answer key were uploaded on the website and an opportunity was granted to all the candidates to file cross objections thereto.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar Verma vs Hon'Ble High Court Of Hp on 7 July, 2025

State of Andhra Pradesh and another vs. Nalla Raja Reddy reported in AIR 1967 SC 1458; Civil Appeal No. 7439-7440 of 2004 titled Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Jamnagar decided on 14.5.2015; Appeal (Civil) No. 1313 of 2008 titled K.Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 15.2.2008; Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi along with connected matters reported in (2008)7 SCC 11; Writ Petition (C) No. 449 of 2012 titled Gunjan Sinha Jain vs. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi decided on 9.4.2012; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2142 of 2013 titled Kamlesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 31.5.2013; CWP No. 10309 of 2012 titled Jitender Kumar vs. Haryana Public Service Commission decided on 30.8.2012; Kanpur University and others vs. Samir Gupta and others reported in (1982)4 SCC 309.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar Verma vs Hon'Ble High Court Of Hp on 7 July, 2025

State of Andhra Pradesh and another vs. Nalla Raja Reddy reported in AIR 1967 SC 1458; Civil Appeal No. 7439-7440 of 2004 titled Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Jamnagar decided on 14.5.2015; Appeal (Civil) No. 1313 of 2008 titled K.Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 15.2.2008; Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi along with connected matters reported in (2008)7 SCC 11; Writ Petition (C) No. 449 of 2012 titled Gunjan Sinha Jain vs. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi decided on 9.4.2012; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2142 of 2013 titled Kamlesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 31.5.2013; CWP No. 10309 of 2012 titled Jitender Kumar vs. Haryana Public Service Commission decided on 30.8.2012; Kanpur University and others vs. Samir Gupta and others reported in (1982)4 SCC 309.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

Ashok Kumar vs Ministry Of Defence And Another on 18 October, 2012

This prayer of the petitioner, at this stage, cannot be accepted in the light of the order passed by this Court in CWP No. CWP No. 21132 of 2012 2 10309 of 2012 titled as Jitender Kumar and another vs. Haryana Public Service Commission, decided on 30.08.2012, which decision has been challenged in a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench, which is still pending wherein except for the publication of the answer keys, the rest of the direction issued by the Court stands stayed. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondents for the claim, as has been made in the present writ petition after the decision of the Division Bench of this Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A G Masih - Full Document
1