Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke And Ors. vs Dr. B.S. Mahajan And Ors. on 6 December, 1989
35. Therefore, in my considered opinion the selection process cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on the ground that separate marks were not assigned under different heads in the interview held on 24.8.2000. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in K.V.L. Kameswari Vs. Andhra University (1 supra) and Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke Vs. B.S. Mahajan (2 supra) are of no assistance to the facts of the case on hand.
Osmania University Represented By ... vs Abdul Rayees Khan & Anr on 25 October, 1996
34. The same question has been considered by the Apex Court in Osmania University Vs. Abdul Rayees Khan (9 supra) it has been observed as follows:
K.V.L. Kameswari vs Andhra University Rep. By Its Registrar ... on 17 December, 1993
35. Therefore, in my considered opinion the selection process cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on the ground that separate marks were not assigned under different heads in the interview held on 24.8.2000. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in K.V.L. Kameswari Vs. Andhra University (1 supra) and Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke Vs. B.S. Mahajan (2 supra) are of no assistance to the facts of the case on hand.
K. Chinna Rajanna vs Vice-Chancellor, Osmania University, ... on 31 March, 1998
In the light of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it has to be examined whether the contention raised by the petitioner that the constitution of the selection committee, which interviewed him on 24.8.2000 is in violation of Clause 20 of the Statute of University of Hyderabad and the recommendations of the UGC is substantiated.
National Institute Of Mental Health & ... vs Dr. K. Kalyana Raman And Others on 28 November, 1991
In National institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences Vs. K.K. Raman, , the Supreme Court held:
Dr. J. P. Kulshreshtha And Ors vs Chancellor, Allahabad University, Raj ... on 30 April, 1980
19. The courts have repeatedly held that the views of the experts are entitled to great weight and the subjective assessment of merit of candidates made by an expert body cannot normally be interfered with unless mala fides or other collateral reasons are shown, vide J.P. Kulshrestha Vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University, ; Neelima Misra Vs. Harinder Kaur Paintal, ; and Dr. Kumar Bar Das Vs. Utkal University,
Km. Neelima Misra vs Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal And Ors on 21 March, 1990
19. The courts have repeatedly held that the views of the experts are entitled to great weight and the subjective assessment of merit of candidates made by an expert body cannot normally be interfered with unless mala fides or other collateral reasons are shown, vide J.P. Kulshrestha Vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University, ; Neelima Misra Vs. Harinder Kaur Paintal, ; and Dr. Kumar Bar Das Vs. Utkal University,
Dr. Kumar Bar Das vs Utkal University & Others on 3 December, 1998
19. The courts have repeatedly held that the views of the experts are entitled to great weight and the subjective assessment of merit of candidates made by an expert body cannot normally be interfered with unless mala fides or other collateral reasons are shown, vide J.P. Kulshrestha Vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University, ; Neelima Misra Vs. Harinder Kaur Paintal, ; and Dr. Kumar Bar Das Vs. Utkal University,
Lila Dhar vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 19 August, 1981
33. Then coming to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since separate marks were not awarded by the selection committee on the details given by the candidate in the Bio-Data, Major Publications and Performance in Interview, the entire selection process is arbitrary and is liable to be set aside, it is pertinent to note that there is no provision either under the Statute of University of Hyderabad or under the guidelines prescribed by the UGC which requires allocation of marks under different heads at the interview. As held by the Apex Court in Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan, , the Courts cannot sit in judgment over the methods of marking employed by interviewing bodies unless it is proved or obvious that the method of marking was chosen with oblique motive.