Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
Hans Raj Meena vs R P S C Ajmer on 26 October, 2017 cites

Board Of High School & Intermediate ... vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others on 6 February, 1962

"7. At the outset it will be profitable to notice some authoritative decisions which have bearing on the points raised before us. In AIR 1962 SC 1110 (Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta) their Lordships held that the Examination Committee, while dealing with the cases of examinees using unfair means in examination hall, acts quasi-judicially and the principles of natural justice apply to the proceedings before it. In that case no notice was at all given to the delinquent-examinee and therefore the order cancelling the examination was quashed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 198 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

The Board Of High School & Inter-Mediate ... vs Bagleshwar Prasad & Others on 27 August, 1962

In AIR 1966 SC 875 (Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. Allahabad v. Bagleshwar (3 of 9) [ CW-17279/2015] Prasad) it was held that the Enquiry Committee set up by the Education Board to enquire into unfair means adopted by the examinees at a particular examination has to decide all relevant questions in the light of evidence adduced before them. It was pointed out that direct evidence in such cases might not be available and the question will have to be considered in the light of the probabilities and circumstantial evidence. Their Lordships, also pointed out that the problem which the educational institutions have to face from time to time is a serious problem and the court should be slow to interfere with the decision of the domestic tribunals.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 110 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Bihar School Examination Board vs Subhas Chandra Sinha, & Ors on 10 March, 1970

In AIR 1970 SC 1269 (The Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha) facts were of course different but the proposition of law laid down by their Lordships is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. There was mass copying by the candidates of a particular centre It was not considered necessary to give specific charges to each of the delinquent-examinee and the examination as a whole was cancelled. Their Lordships observed that the University is responsible for its standards and the conduct of examinations. It cannot hold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a right to its alumni to plead and lead evidence etc. before the results (4 of 9) [ CW-17279/2015] are withheld or the examinations cancelled. If there is sufficient material on which it can be demonstrated that the University was right in its conclusion that the examinations ought to be cancelled then academic standards require that the University's appreciation of the problem must be respected. It would not do for the court to say that you should have examined all the candidates or even their representatives with a view to ascertaining whether they had received assistance or not. To do this would encourage indiscipline if not also perjury.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 216 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Brajendra Maharana And Ors. vs The Utkal University on 18 August, 1975

In the present case, no show cause notice was issued to the candidates. They were never called to appear before the respondent Commission to project their defence and their point of view. They were given no opportunity to project that the communication (Annx.R/1) received from the Additional Director General of Police, Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) and Special Operation Group (SOG), Jaipur, cannot be relied upon. Respondent Commission itself or through its unfair means committee or in house domestic inquiry committee have to act as a quasi-judicial body. After taking the entire case law into consideration, it has been rightly observed by the Division Bench of Orissa High Court in the case of Brajendra Maharana & Ors. (supra) that inquiry must be held to debar a candidate from future examination and this inquiry can be conducted by a domestic tribunal and the functions performed by such tribunal are of quasi-judicialcharacter. In the present petition, petitioners who are affected candidates were not apprised of charges of unfair means. They were not given opportunity to make representation and to explain the circumstances appearing against them. In the present case, principles of natural justice have not (8 of 9) [ CW-17279/2015] been followed.
Orissa High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1