Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.31 seconds)
Bijender Kumar vs Comm. Of Police on 5 May, 2016 cites

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

6.2.2 In Kumari Anjali Saxena Vs. The Chairman, Professional Examination Board (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta (supra), accepted the opinion of the expert, and rejected the contention of the petitioners that the key answers were incorrect.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 633 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Surinder Pal And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 May, 2013

6.2.4 In Surinder Pal & others Vs. State of Punjab & another (supra), the petitioners challenged the result/merit list. The Punjab Public Service Commission, after finding that there were large scale discrepancies in the key answers to various questions, en block granted grace marks to all the candidates irrespective of the fact whether such candidate had attempted the said questions or not. Rejecting the petitioners' contention that an undue benefit was conferred upon the candidates who had not attempted six questions which had been deleted by the Commission finding them to be incorrect, the Hon'ble High Court observed as follows:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 11 - A G Masih - Full Document

Mrityunjay Singh Yadav Son Of Radhe ... vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary, ... on 12 July, 2007

But the assertion of the counsel for the petitioners that pro rata marks should have been granted to the candidates according to the marks scored by the candidates cannot be approved. Had the said procedure been adopted by the Commission, it would have been unjust in the facts and circumstances of this case especially when there was no negative marking for incorrect answers. The said option would be effective and applicable and can be termed as just and reasonable in a competition where a candidate is penalized for a wrong choice exercised in the options given to a question....." 6.2.5 In Mrityunjay Singh Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), the petitioners, who appeared in U.P.Combined Pre Medical Test-2007 (CPMT-2007) conducted by Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, questioned the correctness of the revised results declared on 21.6.2007, rectifying the technical errors in the results declared on 14.6.2007. They alleged manipulations and foul play in preparation of the revised results, and prayed for commanding the respondent-authorities to get a fresh CPMT-2007 conducted by the University having good reputation under the supervision of some independent agency. The Hon'ble High Court observed thus:
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 18 - S Ambwani - Full Document

Berin P.Varghese vs State Of Kerala (Crime No.528/2007 on 18 December, 2007

6.2.3 In Merin Varghese Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (supra), the expert committee concluded that the answers to the particular questions given in the original answer key were wrong. The petitioner questioned the change of answer key. The Hon'ble High Court observed that neither the Page 17 of 29 18 O.As.969 & 1244/16 Commissioner of Entrance Examination nor the Court was an expert on the subject. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - R Basant - Full Document

Anuj Kumar Dhaka vs Commissioner Of Police on 4 November, 2011

13 O.As.969 & 1244/16 Category Cut-off marks General (UR) 73.01406888 OBC 71.29004295 SC 65.57034595 ST 66.01190442 4.2.3 As per the revised result declared on 17.7.2015, the applicants of both the O.As. were provisionally declared as selected. 4.2.4 After the revised result was declared on 17.7.2015, all the selected candidates, including the applicants, were called for the purpose of completion of the codal formalities, i.e., medical examination, police verification, etc. 4.3 In the meanwhile, some of the candidates approached the Tribunal, vide O.A.No.3657 of 2015 (Ankit Kumar & Ors Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors.) and O.A.No.4258 of 2015 (Anuj Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors.), questioning the correctness of Answer Key on the basis of which the OMR Answer Sheets of the candidates were evaluated.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1