Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (0.27 seconds)
Pallavi Pareek D/O Shri Ram Kumar Pareek vs Registrar, Rajasthan High Court on 8 April, 2022 cites

Ran Vijay Singh vs State Of U.P. . on 11 December, 2017

In one of the latest decisions in the case of High Court of Tripura through The Registrar General (supra) while re- iterating and re-affirming settled legal position that in the absence of there being a provision for re-evaluation, re-evaluation could not be done or ordered, cases of exceptional nature as noticed earlier in the case of Kanpur University through Vice Chancellor & Others (supra), Manish Ujwal & Others (supra) & Ran Vijay Singh & Others (supra), were taken into consideration and permissible course of action to deal with such exceptional cases, even though there was no provision for re-evaluation as such, was evolved.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 409 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Chairman-Cum-Managing Director vs Rahul Singh Sakya on 15 February, 2013

46. Such a course of action has been held to be legally permissible in the event questions are required to be deleted being defective for one reason or the other in the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its Chairman and Another Vs. Rahul Singh and Another (supra) as is clear from observations made in Para 13 of the said judgment, already referred to and reproduced hereinabove.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 110 - Full Document

Richal vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission on 3 May, 2018

Reliance was placed by the Appellants on Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission. In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 205 - A Bhushan - Full Document

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

In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, this Court was dealing with a case relating to the Combined Pre-Medical Test. Admittedly, the examination setter himself had provided the key answers and there were no committees to moderate or verify the correctness of the key answers provided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court that the students had proved that three of the key answers were wrong. The following observations of the Court are pertinent:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 633 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next