Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
Union Public Service Commission vs Centran Information Commission And ... on 17 April, 2007 cites

U.P. Public Services Commission vs Subhash Chandra Dixit & Ors on 5 November, 2003

16. Mr Prashant Bhushan, the learned Counsel who appeared for the respondent No. 24 also submitted that the scaling system already stood disclosed before the Supreme Court. He referred to the counter-affidavit filed by the UPSC in the case of UP Public Service Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit (supra) in SLP (c) 23723/2002. In paragraph 3 of the said counter-affidavit, the UPSC has stated that the scaling system being followed by the Uttar Pradesh PSC (UP PSC) is different from that of the UPSC. It was noted that while the UP PSC was following a linear method (also known as the standard Page 1316 deviation method) for its examinations, the UPSC's scaling method was based on the Normalized Equi-Percentile (NEP) method for the optional objective type papers in the Preliminary Examination. Annexure-II to the said counter-affidavit spelt out the scaling methods. The Normalised Equi-Percentile method used by the UPSC has been explained as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 97 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Sanjay Singh & Anr. Ã Petitioners vs U.P. Public Service ... on 9 January, 2007

17. In view of the contents of the said counter-affidavit and its annexure, Mr Prashant Bhushan submitted that the scaling methods were well-known and, therefore, the argument that the disclosure of the cut-offs and actual marks would result in the revealing of the scaling method is a meaningless argument. Secondly, he submitted that the scaling method would, in any event, be known to everybody and, therefore, the argument that one group would misuse and undermine the system is untenable. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh and Anr. v. UP Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Anr. 2007 (2) JT 534 which was with regard to the scaling methodology employed for judicial services examination. Mr Bhushan referred to this decision to indicate that the examination system and scaling methodology employed must be under constant review so as to endeavor to evolve a better and more fool-proof system.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 322 - Full Document

Kamlesh Haribhai Goradia vs Union Of Indian (Uoi) And Anr. on 14 April, 1986

14. Mr Aman Lekhi, the learned senior counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondents 2 to 5 and 7 to 23, submitted that there is no question of the disclosure leading to any undermining of the system. He submitted that the final examination and the interview are yet to be conducted. With regard to the confidentiality argument, he submitted that such an argument had already been rejected by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Kamlesh Haribhai Goradia v. Union of India and Anr. 1987 (1) Guj LR 157.
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 32 - Full Document
1