Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.57 seconds)
T.Marimuthu vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 27 August, 2019 cites

The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963

“41. The appellants have maintained that while prescribing the marks for performance in Higher Secondary Examination, the respondents have failed to take into account different Education Boards (CBSE, ICSE, 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) No.16923 of 2014 State Boards etc.,) conducting Higher Secondary Examination and difference in their marks awarding patterns. As also, the appellants have alleged that respondents failed to consider different streams of education while formulating the grading pattern. It is submitted that unless and until the respondents take note of difference in marking scheme of Education boards, as also the marking scheme of different streams such as Arts, Science etc., a valid grading system cannot be formulated. Equivalence of academic qualifications is a matter for experts and Courts normally do not interfere with the decisions of the Government based on the recommendations of the experts (vide University of Mysore v. CD Govinda Rao (1964) 4 SCR 575 and Mohd. Sujat Ali vs. Union of India (1975) 3 SCC 76). We hold that it is the prerogative of State-Authorities to formulate a system whereby weightage marks is decided with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. In the present case, as no arbitrariness is proved on the part of the respondents, in formulating the grading system we cannot interfere with the same. We cannot be expected to go into every minute technicalities of decision taken by the experts and perform the job of the repsondent-State. Moreover, the High Court has also noted that submission of learned Advocate General that almost all the appellants ahve completed their High Secondary examination from the State Boards.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 754 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Mohammad Shujat, Ali & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 3 May, 1974

“41. The appellants have maintained that while prescribing the marks for performance in Higher Secondary Examination, the respondents have failed to take into account different Education Boards (CBSE, ICSE, 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD) No.16923 of 2014 State Boards etc.,) conducting Higher Secondary Examination and difference in their marks awarding patterns. As also, the appellants have alleged that respondents failed to consider different streams of education while formulating the grading pattern. It is submitted that unless and until the respondents take note of difference in marking scheme of Education boards, as also the marking scheme of different streams such as Arts, Science etc., a valid grading system cannot be formulated. Equivalence of academic qualifications is a matter for experts and Courts normally do not interfere with the decisions of the Government based on the recommendations of the experts (vide University of Mysore v. CD Govinda Rao (1964) 4 SCR 575 and Mohd. Sujat Ali vs. Union of India (1975) 3 SCC 76). We hold that it is the prerogative of State-Authorities to formulate a system whereby weightage marks is decided with reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. In the present case, as no arbitrariness is proved on the part of the respondents, in formulating the grading system we cannot interfere with the same. We cannot be expected to go into every minute technicalities of decision taken by the experts and perform the job of the repsondent-State. Moreover, the High Court has also noted that submission of learned Advocate General that almost all the appellants ahve completed their High Secondary examination from the State Boards.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 296 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1