Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.36 seconds)
Sudhakar Kewat vs The Madhya Pradesh Medical Science ... on 22 June, 2022 cites

H.P.Public Service Commission vs Mukesh Thakur & Anr on 25 May, 2010

It is submitted that the petitioners have appeared in first year examination in 2021. The results were pronounced on 27.08.2021 and each of the petitioners were declared fail in subjects Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry. They participated in compartment examination on the said subjects in November, 2021 and the result was declared in January, 2022. They approached the University by submitting applications for re-totalling and submitted the applications for physical verification of answer-sheets. The respondent no.2 Controller of the Examination without revaluation of the answer-sheets of some students awarded the marks up to 20-30 each on the same subject. Petitioners Signature Not Verified SAN made applications seeking revaluation. It is submitted that hostile discrimination Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN has been done with the petitioners, as on revaluation of answer-sheets of some KHAN Date: 2022.06.25 16:49:20 IST students, marks have been enhanced up to 20-30, but in cases of the petitioners, 3 it was observed that "there is no change in the marks". It is submitted that similar controversy came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Another reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 and before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.P. Board of Secondary Education and another Vs. Ku. Vinita Rupra reported in 1998 (1) M.P.L.J. 595 wherein, the Courts have directed the University to send the answer-sheets of the petitioners to any renowned examiner and declare the result of the petitioners on the basis of marks awarded by them. It is submitted that the answer-sheets were not properly evaluated and the marks which have been awarded are on lower side. That the same is illegal and amounts to ruin the future of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have filed this petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 842 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

M.P. Board Of Secondary Education And ... vs Ku. Vinita Rupra on 12 September, 1997

It is submitted that the petitioners have appeared in first year examination in 2021. The results were pronounced on 27.08.2021 and each of the petitioners were declared fail in subjects Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry. They participated in compartment examination on the said subjects in November, 2021 and the result was declared in January, 2022. They approached the University by submitting applications for re-totalling and submitted the applications for physical verification of answer-sheets. The respondent no.2 Controller of the Examination without revaluation of the answer-sheets of some students awarded the marks up to 20-30 each on the same subject. Petitioners Signature Not Verified SAN made applications seeking revaluation. It is submitted that hostile discrimination Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN has been done with the petitioners, as on revaluation of answer-sheets of some KHAN Date: 2022.06.25 16:49:20 IST students, marks have been enhanced up to 20-30, but in cases of the petitioners, 3 it was observed that "there is no change in the marks". It is submitted that similar controversy came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Another reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 and before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.P. Board of Secondary Education and another Vs. Ku. Vinita Rupra reported in 1998 (1) M.P.L.J. 595 wherein, the Courts have directed the University to send the answer-sheets of the petitioners to any renowned examiner and declare the result of the petitioners on the basis of marks awarded by them. It is submitted that the answer-sheets were not properly evaluated and the marks which have been awarded are on lower side. That the same is illegal and amounts to ruin the future of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have filed this petition.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 61 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth Etc on 17 July, 1984

In absence of any illegality or arbitrariness in reevaluating the answer-sheets no relief can be extended to the petitioners as per the settled propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Central Board of Secondary Education through Secretary, All India Pre-medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination and others Vs. Khushboo Shrivastava and others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 523, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27 as well as in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava V. Bihar Public Service Commission reported in (2004) 6 SCC 714.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 990 - V B Eradi - Full Document

Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs Chairman, Bihar Public Service ... on 6 August, 2004

In absence of any illegality or arbitrariness in reevaluating the answer-sheets no relief can be extended to the petitioners as per the settled propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Central Board of Secondary Education through Secretary, All India Pre-medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination and others Vs. Khushboo Shrivastava and others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 523, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27 as well as in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava V. Bihar Public Service Commission reported in (2004) 6 SCC 714.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 410 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Yashwin Bhagchandani vs Mp. Medical Science University on 27 April, 2021

The aforesaid aspect was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Yashwini Bhagchandani (supra) and it was held that the revaluation cannot be asked for as a matter of right. Even otherwise, the revaluation has already been done in the matter. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in absence of any provision for revaluation, a mandamus cannot be issued by this Court directing the authorities to undergo revaluation.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - P Shrivastava - Full Document
1