Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth Etc on 17 July, 1984
SCC 523, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while noticing
the judgment in Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education
case (supra) has held as under:
Rustam Garg & Ors vs Himachal Pradesh Public Service ... on 29 March, 2016
15. A Division Bench of this Court in Rustam
Garg and others vs. Himachal Pradesh Public
Service Commission, ILR 2016 Vol. (2), 591,
while dealing with an identical proposition has held
as under:
Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 15 October, 2020
4. The similar reiteration of law can be found in
another decision of the learned Division Bench of this
Court, authored by one of us (Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:23:57 :::CIS
7
in Bhupinder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
and another 2021 (1) Him. L.R. (DB) 6 and in CWP
.
Smt. Mamta Devi @ Ranjna vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 20 December, 2016
No. 5524 of 2021 titled Smt. Mamta Thakur vs. State
of H.P. and Others, decided on 27.09.2021.
Vikash Kumar Gupta vs State Of Raj And Ors on 27 July, 2021
5. We may, at this stage, refer to a fairly recent
judgment rendered by three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta and another vs. State of
Rajasthan and others (2021) 2 SCC 309 wherein
r the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though re-evaluation can
be directed, if rules permit, however, deprecated the
practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by
the Courts which lack expertise and it was further held that
it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the
question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when
the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the
candidates. Courts have to show deference and
consideration to the recommendations of the Expert
Committee, who have expertise to evaluate and make
recommendations. It shall be apposite to refer to the
relevant observations as contained in paragraphs 13 to 17
which read as under:-
Basavaiah vs H.L. Ramesh & Ors on 29 July, 2010
6 SCC 759. Courts have to show deference and
consideration to the recommendation of the Expert
Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and
make recommendations (See- Basavaiah v. H.L.
Ramesh (2010) 8 SCC 372.
Ran Vijay Singh vs State Of U.P. . on 11 December, 2017
15.Examining the scope of judicial review with
regards to re-evaluation of answer sheets, this Court
in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. (2018) 2 SCC 357
held that court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize
the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no
expertise in the matters and the academic matters
are best left to academics. This Court in the said
judgment further held as follows: (Ran Vijay Singh
case9, SCC pp. 369-70, paras 31-32)
"31.
Richal vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission on 3 May, 2018
that of the Expert Committee in its judgment dated
12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by the Appellants
on Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission
(2018) 8 SCC 81. 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.
Himanshu Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 14 October, 2019
3. What would be the scope of judicial review in
the given facts and circumstances of the case has recently
been considered by this Bench in CWP No. 4999 of 2021,
titled Upanshu Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
and another and connected matter, wherein it was
observed as under:-