Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.06 seconds)Inst.Of Chartered Accountants Of India vs Shaunak H Sayta & Ors on 2 September, 2011
18. We have in our judgment dated 24.05.2012 in LPA No.1090/2011 titled
Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Sh. Anil Kumar Kathpal, relying on the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781
held that in achieving the objective of transparency and accountability of the RTI
Act, other equally important public interests including preservation of
confidentiality of sensitive information are not to be ignored or sacrificed and that
it has to be ensured that revelation of information in actual practice, does not
harm or adversely affect other public interests including of preservation of
confidentiality of sensitive information. Thus, disclosure of, marks which though
existed, but were replaced by grades, was not allowed. Purposive, not literal
interpretation of the RTI Act was advocated."
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shri Msh Beig on 20 November, 2014
It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even
the copies of the question papers of the written examinations ought not be
provided since the number of questions were limited and the same are also used in
different tests. The controversy whether an examining body can be asked to
disclose the question papers in circumstances where the number of questions are
limited and are repeated, has been considered by this court in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Shri MSF Beig: W.P.(C) No.272/2012 decided on 20.11.2014 and it has
been held that in such cases, the examining body cannot be compelled to disclose
the question papers.
All India Institute Of Medical Sciences vs Vikrant Bhuria on 28 May, 2012
"I am of the view that while, undoubtedly, the examination qua which
information was being sought in All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Vikrant
Bhuria case pertains to a super specialty course, where seats were limited, that by
itself did not form the basis of the conclusion reached by the Division Bench. The
view taken by the Division Bench is based on the fact that there is limited number
of questions available to the petitioner, and that if, this information is put out in
public domain then, it would be difficult for the petitioners to select candidates on
the basis of their analytical ability. In other words, the examinee may perhaps take
to the rote route to qualify the examination.
Mohd Misbahuddin vs Ministry Of Railways on 18 January, 2018
Here, it is relevant to quote an observation of a coordinate bench of this
Commission in the matter of Mohd Misbahuddin vs Ministry of Railways decided
on 18.01.2018 with reference to an identical controversy regarding the
applicability of the Arun Kumar judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court
juxtaposed to the Apex Court judgments in Aditya Bandhopadhyay and Shaunak
Satya matters, as under:
Bihar School Examination Board vs Subhas Chandra Sinha, & Ors on 10 March, 1970
17. We also need to remind ourselves of the line of the judgments of which
reference may only be made to State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K. Shyam Sunder AIR 2011
SC 3470, The Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha (1970) 1
SCC 648, The University of Mysore Vs. C. D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491,
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs.
Paritosh Bhupesh kumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27 holding that the Courts should not
interfere with such decisions of the academic authorities who are experts in their
field. Once the experts of the appellant have taken a view that the disclosure of
the question papers would compromise the selection process, we cannot lightly
10
interfere therewith.
The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963
17. We also need to remind ourselves of the line of the judgments of which
reference may only be made to State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K. Shyam Sunder AIR 2011
SC 3470, The Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha (1970) 1
SCC 648, The University of Mysore Vs. C. D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491,
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs.
Paritosh Bhupesh kumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27 holding that the Courts should not
interfere with such decisions of the academic authorities who are experts in their
field. Once the experts of the appellant have taken a view that the disclosure of
the question papers would compromise the selection process, we cannot lightly
10
interfere therewith.
Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth Etc on 17 July, 1984
17. We also need to remind ourselves of the line of the judgments of which
reference may only be made to State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K. Shyam Sunder AIR 2011
SC 3470, The Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha (1970) 1
SCC 648, The University of Mysore Vs. C. D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491,
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs.
Paritosh Bhupesh kumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27 holding that the Courts should not
interfere with such decisions of the academic authorities who are experts in their
field. Once the experts of the appellant have taken a view that the disclosure of
the question papers would compromise the selection process, we cannot lightly
10
interfere therewith.
Sri Sanchit Bansal And Another vs The Joint Admission Board (Jab) And ... on 6 January, 2010
Reference in this regard may also be made to the recent
dicta in Sanchit Bansal Vs. The Joint Admission Board (JAB) (2012) 1 SCC 157
observing that the process of evaluation and selection of candidates for
admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the
objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the
specialized courses, are all technical matters in academic field and Courts will
not interfere in such processes. (Emphasis Supplied)
Central Board Of Secondary Education vs Sh. Anil Kumar Kathpal on 24 May, 2012
18. We have in our judgment dated 24.05.2012 in LPA No.1090/2011 titled
Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Sh. Anil Kumar Kathpal, relying on the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781
held that in achieving the objective of transparency and accountability of the RTI
Act, other equally important public interests including preservation of
confidentiality of sensitive information are not to be ignored or sacrificed and that
it has to be ensured that revelation of information in actual practice, does not
harm or adversely affect other public interests including of preservation of
confidentiality of sensitive information. Thus, disclosure of, marks which though
existed, but were replaced by grades, was not allowed. Purposive, not literal
interpretation of the RTI Act was advocated."