Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)Priyanka Pandey vs Secretary, Board Of Secondary ... on 29 March, 2007
9. Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by
omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided
upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which
a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Perceptional
change in the assessment cannot be reckoned as negligence to
order revaluation. Negligence justifying interference by the
Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to order revaluation of the answer sheets
of the candidates in an examination shall be careless conduct
involving a breach of duty. There is nothing on record to
indicate that the High Court was guilty of careless conduct,
much less careless conduct involving a breach of duty, in the
evaluation of the answer sheets of the candidates who
W.P.(C) No.17185 of 2014 12
appeared for the examination. As such, the decision of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Priyanka Pandey v.
Secretary, Board of Secondary Education (supra) may not
have any application.
H.P.Public Service Commission vs Mukesh Thakur & Anr on 25 May, 2010
H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur
(supra) is also a case relating to the selection of Judicial
Officers. Further, the counter affidavit filed by the High Court
in this case indicates that the answer sheets were distributed to
the evaluators in such a way that the answers written by the
candidates to a particular question is valued only by the same
evaluator. If that was the case, as observed by the Apex Court,
if at all there was any shortfall in the evaluation of the answer
sheets on account of the perceptional difference in the
assessment of a particular evaluator, the same would have
been the situation in the case of all the candidates appeared
for the examination.
The Secretary, West Bengal Council Of ... vs Ayan Das & Ors on 28 September, 2007
7. It is settled that in the absence of any provision
for revaluation of answer sheets in the relevant rules, no
candidate in an examination has any right whatsoever to claim
or ask for a revaluation of his answer sheets. (See the decisions
of the Apex Court in (1) Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar
Public Service Commission [(2004) 6 SCC 714], (2)
Muneeb-Ul-Rehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of J&K State
W.P.(C) No.17185 of 2014 6
[(1984) 4 SCC 24], (3) Board of Secondary Education v.
Pravas Ranjan Panda [(2004) 13 SCC 383], (4) Board of
Secondary Education v. D.Suvankar [(2007) 1 SCC 603],
(5) W.B.Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan
Das [(2007) 8 SCC 242] and (6) Sahiti v. Dr.N.T.R.
University of Health Sciences [(2009)1 SCC 599]). In the
case on hand, it is conceded that the notification does not
provide for revaluation of the answer sheets of the candidates.
There is also no challenge in the writ petition against the said
policy of the High Court in not providing for revaluation of the
answer sheets of the candidates. As such, in the light of the
various decisions of the Apex Court referred to above, the
petitioner cannot seek directions to revalue the answer sheets
of the candidates appeared for the examination.
The President Board Of Secondary ... vs D. Suvankar & Anr on 14 November, 2006
7. It is settled that in the absence of any provision
for revaluation of answer sheets in the relevant rules, no
candidate in an examination has any right whatsoever to claim
or ask for a revaluation of his answer sheets. (See the decisions
of the Apex Court in (1) Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar
Public Service Commission [(2004) 6 SCC 714], (2)
Muneeb-Ul-Rehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of J&K State
W.P.(C) No.17185 of 2014 6
[(1984) 4 SCC 24], (3) Board of Secondary Education v.
Pravas Ranjan Panda [(2004) 13 SCC 383], (4) Board of
Secondary Education v. D.Suvankar [(2007) 1 SCC 603],
(5) W.B.Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan
Das [(2007) 8 SCC 242] and (6) Sahiti v. Dr.N.T.R.
University of Health Sciences [(2009)1 SCC 599]). In the
case on hand, it is conceded that the notification does not
provide for revaluation of the answer sheets of the candidates.
There is also no challenge in the writ petition against the said
policy of the High Court in not providing for revaluation of the
answer sheets of the candidates. As such, in the light of the
various decisions of the Apex Court referred to above, the
petitioner cannot seek directions to revalue the answer sheets
of the candidates appeared for the examination.
Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs Chairman, Bihar Public Service ... on 6 August, 2004
7. It is settled that in the absence of any provision
for revaluation of answer sheets in the relevant rules, no
candidate in an examination has any right whatsoever to claim
or ask for a revaluation of his answer sheets. (See the decisions
of the Apex Court in (1) Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar
Public Service Commission [(2004) 6 SCC 714], (2)
Muneeb-Ul-Rehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of J&K State
W.P.(C) No.17185 of 2014 6
[(1984) 4 SCC 24], (3) Board of Secondary Education v.
Pravas Ranjan Panda [(2004) 13 SCC 383], (4) Board of
Secondary Education v. D.Suvankar [(2007) 1 SCC 603],
(5) W.B.Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan
Das [(2007) 8 SCC 242] and (6) Sahiti v. Dr.N.T.R.
University of Health Sciences [(2009)1 SCC 599]). In the
case on hand, it is conceded that the notification does not
provide for revaluation of the answer sheets of the candidates.
There is also no challenge in the writ petition against the said
policy of the High Court in not providing for revaluation of the
answer sheets of the candidates. As such, in the light of the
various decisions of the Apex Court referred to above, the
petitioner cannot seek directions to revalue the answer sheets
of the candidates appeared for the examination.
Dr. Muneeb Ul Rehman Haroon And Ors vs Government Of Jammu And Kashmir State ... on 13 August, 1984
7. It is settled that in the absence of any provision
for revaluation of answer sheets in the relevant rules, no
candidate in an examination has any right whatsoever to claim
or ask for a revaluation of his answer sheets. (See the decisions
of the Apex Court in (1) Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar
Public Service Commission [(2004) 6 SCC 714], (2)
Muneeb-Ul-Rehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of J&K State
W.P.(C) No.17185 of 2014 6
[(1984) 4 SCC 24], (3) Board of Secondary Education v.
Pravas Ranjan Panda [(2004) 13 SCC 383], (4) Board of
Secondary Education v. D.Suvankar [(2007) 1 SCC 603],
(5) W.B.Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan
Das [(2007) 8 SCC 242] and (6) Sahiti v. Dr.N.T.R.
University of Health Sciences [(2009)1 SCC 599]). In the
case on hand, it is conceded that the notification does not
provide for revaluation of the answer sheets of the candidates.
There is also no challenge in the writ petition against the said
policy of the High Court in not providing for revaluation of the
answer sheets of the candidates. As such, in the light of the
various decisions of the Apex Court referred to above, the
petitioner cannot seek directions to revalue the answer sheets
of the candidates appeared for the examination.
1