Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)
Rajinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 11 January, 2017 cites

Daljit Kaur & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 18 May, 2016

4 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2017 04:42:53 ::: CWP-25300, 26504 & 26714-2014 and CWP-10405 & 11508-2015 -5- While examining the answer keys of PSTET, 2015, this Court, in Daljit Kaur & another Vs. State of Punjab & others 2016 (3) SCT 26, elaborated on the issue of jurisdiction and came to the conclusion that where the options were glaringly improbable or impossible, the Court would go into the issue. The fact that the subject experts had the necessary expertise was also taken into consideration but where the questions were palpably wrong and the answer keys were patently incorrect, it was held that jurisdiction of the Court to go into the issue, would, as such, be not barred. The relevant observations read as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Kanpur University And Others vs Samir Gupta And Others on 27 September, 1983

"11. The issue of correct answer keys and the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere or deliberate upon, has been dealt by a Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Kanpur University & others Vs. Samir Gupta & others 1983 (4) SCC 309. In the said case, the High Court had accepted the contention of the students that the answers ticked by them are correct and the key answers furnished by the paper setters were wrong, since there was two options as per Hindi and the English version. The publication of the key was approved since the students had benefited otherwise they would have suffered injustice. Relevant observation reads as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 633 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Reetika And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 1 September, 2015

In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court, in Reetika & others Vs. State of Punjab & others 2016 (1) SCT 71, while examining the answer keys of the PMET Test, 2015, also came to the same opinion that where remedial steps had been taken, then the examiner's answer key is considered to be correct. It was, accordingly, held that the answers or formation of answer keys to the questions should be left to the subject experts and the specialists in the subjects. It was also further noticed that where the options are shown to be glaringly improbable or impossible, the Court would go into the issue. Relevant portions of the judgment read as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - R K Jain - Full Document

Manish Ujwal And Ors. vs Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati ... on 16 August, 2005

In Manish Ujwal & others Vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University & others 2005 (13) SCC 744, the High Court had refused to interfere with the answer keys on the ground that it could not be said with certainty that the answer keys were erroneous or incorrect. The Apex Court noticed that experts had come to the conclusion that the answer keys were erroneous and the answer keys provided by the University were wrong and therefore, deprecated the University's casual approach provided by the concerned persons. Accordingly, re-evaluation was directed by changing the correct answer keys and by setting aside the judgment of the High Court and imposing costs of Rs.1 lakh. Relevant observations read as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 241 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Sajeesh Babu K vs N.K.Santhosh & Ors on 19 October, 2012

In the absence of any such material, the principles, as laid down above, would stand in the way of the petitioner(s) that once the matters have been referred to the subject experts, it would not be for this Court to substitute the opinion of the experts and therefore, reliance is placed by the respondents upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Sajeesh Babu K. Vs. N.K.Santhosh & others 2012 (12) SCC 106, wherein, it was held that reverence was to be shown to the experts and only if there is allegations of mala fide, interference is to be done. Relevant observations read as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 113 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 Next