Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)
Chhattisgarh Professional ... vs Vikram Singh Rana 35 Mcc/252/2020 Smt. ... on 6 March, 2020 cites

Kanpur University And Others vs Samir Gupta And Others on 27 September, 1983

4. The above writ petition filed on 02.07.2019, was listed for consideration / admission on 09.07.2019. Based on the advance copy served upon the standing counsel for the Board (who was the 1 st Respondent in the writ petition), a reply was filed in response to the interim relief sought for, contending that the proceedings were pursued and finalized strictly as per the norms; that the objections were considered meticulously by the Expert Committee constituted by the Appellant - Board; that there was no merit or basis on the objections raised by the Petitioners; that the Petitioners were virtually placed far below in the merit list because of the lower ranks secured by them and further that the Petitioners had failed to demonstrate the genuineness of the objections; by virtue of which no interference was possible in view of the law declared by the Apex Court on the point; including as per decision in Kanpur University and Others v. Samir Gupta and Others1 and such other verdicts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 633 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Uttar Pradesh Public Service ... vs Rahul Singh on 14 June, 2018

14. The above questions and answers, as considered and opined by the Expert Committee, have been referred to by this Court only to point out that the Petitioners have miserably failed to demonstrate the genuineness of their objections before the writ Court, which was essential, in view of the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra), before any relief was granted. There is absolutely no challenge as to the competence of the Expert Committee, constituted by the Appellant-Board or as to any instance of mala fides. This being the position, the idea of the writ petitioners with reference to the way in which it has been painted in some of the textbooks and sought to be relied on by them to suit to their stand 15 cannot be a ground to tilt the balance in respect of the opinion given by the Expert Committee, for the reasons as given in Annexure-A/5. The course of action pursued by the Appellant-Board is demonstrated as transparent in all respects. The questions were framed by the Experts and after completion of the Examination, the Model Answers were published as per Annexure-A/3, giving a chance to the candidates to submit the objections, if any. It was after considering all the objections, that the opinion was formed by the Expert Committee, leading to finalization of the answers as per Annexure-A/4 and the publication of merit list. This being the position, the 'decision making process' pursued by the Appellant-Board is quite in order and there is no scope for interference in this regard.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 133 - D Gupta - Full Document

Vijay Karan Singh vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... on 9 April, 2004

8. According to the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2 (the writ petitioners) the objections raised by them in respect of questions No. 95 and 104 have not been properly considered and that the opinion of the Expert Committee has to be re-considered in the light of some other textbooks sought to be relied on by the writ petitioners. Similarly, it is pointed out that there is no rhyme or reason for deleting the questions concerned, as according to the writ petitioners the said questions did not suffer from any obscurity and the choices given contained the right answers, which accordingly were opted and marked by them. Even though, it is stated that marks in respect of the deleted questions have been re-distributed to all the candidates, by virtue of the 'minus marks' provided, it may change the balance altogether. The learned counsel 2 (2018) 7 SCC 254 8 further submits that the very same Appellant-Board, in respect of a different examination conducted for the PWD & Medical Services Corporation Examination, 2018 has given a different answer with reference to Question No. 95 and this clearly demonstrates that even the Appellant - Board was not having a consistent stand as to the answers; which hence requires re-examination as sought for in the writ petitions or to have a re-evaluation after constituting a High Level Technical Committee for preparing the final answer-sheet. The Respondent No.1 and 2 (writ petitioners No.1 & 2) have also sought to place reliance on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others3 (paragraph 1) {which decision has been referred to in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission's case (supra) cited from the part of the Appellant}.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 217 - S Ambwani - Full Document
1