Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)
Shubham Dutt vs The Convenor Clat 2015 (Ug) Exam And 2 Ors on 2 July, 2015 cites

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

In Kanpur University, Through Vice Chancellor and others Vs. Samir Gupta and others 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with a situation of similar type. A multiple choice objective type test was conducted, the key answers supplied by the paper-setter were wrong. It is held that, the students is entitled to full marks if answer is correct and the correctness needs to be ascertained from standard and prescribed text-books and not merely on the basis of inferences.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 633 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

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

26 In Manish Ujwal and others Vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and others 2 the Apex Court has directed to give marks/reliefs whereby after noting erroneous key answers in similar 2 (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 744 25/33 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 23:58:49 ::: ssm 26 922-wpl1784.15.sxw type multiple choice objective test. The Supreme Court has also directed to re-evaluate all the questions to prepare merit list on the basis of corrected marks/numbers, if any. The Supreme Court has also directed to publish a fresh merit list.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 241 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Jimmy Abraham Thomas And Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 21 September, 2001

28 The Division Bench of this Court in Jimmy Abraham Thomas and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 4 by overruling the preliminary objection that disturbing any examination process , would have large scale dislocation, as many students must have taken their admission in different colleges as per the allotments so referred 3 (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 749 4 2002(3)BomCR219 26/33 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 23:58:49 ::: ssm 27 922-wpl1784.15.sxw above. They must have paid fees also. However, ultimately by allowing the Writ Petition, this Court directed to publish and implement the revised merit list and ordered to grant admission to the students strictly in accordance revised list to the colleges of their choices.
Bombay High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 3 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

Tanvi Sarwal vs Central Board Of Secondary Education . on 15 June, 2015

29 In the present case the submission is also made to quash the whole process by relying on the Supreme Court Judgment Tanvi Sarwal Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Ors 5 . We are not inclined to accept this submission to avoid further delay and the admission process. The objections so filed, if decided for and/or against, the Respondents and/or its Authority, would be in position to take decision being Expert Panel/Committee, to revise the list after due assessment, if objections are correct, and if the objections are rejected by giving reasons, they can maintain the merit lists so prepared. Ultimately, they have to take decision based upon the facts and the law.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 12 - Cited by 38 - A Roy - Full Document

Asha vs Pt. B.D.Sharma University And Others on 4 November, 2011

30 The learned Senior counsel appearing for the Respondents as referred and read and distinguish the Judgments so cited by the 5 Writ Petition (Civil) No.298 / 2015, Dated 15th June, 2015. (Supreme Court) 27/33 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 23:58:49 ::: ssm 28 922-wpl1784.15.sxw Petitioner and also relied upon the Supreme Court Judgment in Asha Vs. Pt. B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences and ors 6 . The Apex Court in para 31 observed that:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 124 - S Kant - Full Document

Arti Sapru vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir & Others on 27 February, 1981

"31 ........ Though there can be rarest of rare cases or exceptional circumstances where the courts may have to mould the relief and make exception to the cut-off date of 30th September, but in those cases, the Court must first return a finding that no fault is attributable to the candidate, the candidate has pursued her rights and legal remedies expeditiously without any delay and that there is fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach of some rules, Regulations and principles in the process of selection and grant of admission. Where denial of admission violates the right to equality and equal treatment of the candidate, it would be completely unjust and unfair to deny such exceptional relief to the candidate. [Refer Arti Sapru and Ors. v. State of J and K and Ors.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 30 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Ruchashree Sangole And 6 Ors vs Director, Medical Education And ... on 12 June, 2015

31 We have also recently in Ms. Ruchashree Sangole & Ors. Vs. Director, Medical Education & Research (DMER) & Anr. Writ Petition (L) No. 1681 of 2015 dated 12 June 2015, directed the State to add one 6 AIR 2012 SC 3396 28/33 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2015 23:58:49 ::: ssm 29 922-wpl1784.15.sxw mark as Experts also conceded to the position to add one mark to all those students who attempted to answer the questions having two probable answers.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - A V Mohta - Full Document
1