Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.34 seconds)Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
ER 680 reiterated by the Court in England, was approved by the Supreme Court and applied in number of cases including Tata Cellular (supra).
Kanpur University And Others vs Samir Gupta And Others on 27 September, 1983
As regards the system of Multiple Choice Objective-type test, Honble the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider such situation in the judgment of Kanpur University V. Samir Gupta (AIR 1983 SC 1230). In that case, in a situation of multiple choice questions, there was challenge to the correctness of some of the answers which were said to be the key answers. The matter was decided by the Allahabad High Court by taking a particular view. While disposing of the appeal, the Supreme Court indicated in Paragraph 18 the principle to be adopted while dealing with such matter. The Supreme Court observed ad infra:
Ram Ratan Meena And 25 Ors. vs State And Rpsc on 23 May, 2008
Immediately, after declaration of result of written examination, certain writ petitions came to be filed before the learned Single Judge of this Court raising grievance that certain questions were having wrong answers or more than one and some questions were not properly framed and that has not been properly looked into by the RPSC and such of the writ petitions in relation to the post of Teacher Grade II to which the present controversy is concerned are CWP No. 12256/2012 Munna Meena Vs. RPSC & Others in regard to subject Social Science and CWP No. 12964/2012 Rajesh Kumar Vs. RPSC & Others in regard to subject mathematics.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 20 July, 1990
In the result the special appeal no. 42/2013 Raj Kumar Vs State & alike others stands allowed and the order of the learned single Judge dt.15.12.2012 and the select list dt.25.12.2012 published pursuant thereto are hereby quashed & set aside.
1