Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)
Anand Mohan Jha And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 18 January, 2005 cites

Bihar Public Service Commission & Anr vs Vinoy Kumar Singh & Anr on 4 August, 2003

31. Obeying the principle as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, I also carefully examined whether the decision taken by the Board was reasonable, rationale and not arbitrary. Upon perusal of the original record it appears that the action of the respondents No. 2 cannot said to be arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore, I also agree with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court and the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court is fully applicable to the instant case also and decision taken by the Board does not require by interference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar & Anr vs The Institute Of Engineers (India) on 25 July, 1997

32. I also perused the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar and Anr. v. Institute of Engineers (India) (supra), wherein the Apex Court has held that the novel method of cramming test adopted by the Institute by itself cannot render evidence of conspiracy between the candidates to adopt unfair means. The facts and the circumstances of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is altogether different and the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the instant case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Sarat Kumar Panigrahi vs The Secretary, Board Of Secondary ... on 28 February, 2003

In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarat Kumar Panigrahi v. the Secy. Board of Secondary Education, Orissa (2003 (2) SC 386). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that the Courts can certainly examine whether the decision making process was reasonable, rationale and not arbitrary on the facts and circumstances in each case. There has been no infirmity in the decision making process by the Commissioner. It is further held that the impugned action initiated by the Commission in cancelling the examination of respondents No. 1 and debarring him is well founded and calls for no interference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Dipakkumar Narsibhai Patel vs North Gujarat University And Ors. on 1 February, 1999

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Dipakkumar Narsibhai Patel v. North Gujarat University, Patan and Ors. (AIR 2000 Gujarat 43). The single Judge of Gujarat High Court has held that cancellation of examination of student relying, only on report of observer-Improper-Moreso when despite having sufficient time, observer failed to record statements of concerned student as well as senior and block supervisor at relevant time.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - S K Keshote - Full Document
1