Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)
Amit Rajendra Dongre And Another vs Ananta Narayan Nanda And Others on 4 May, 2018 cites

Monu Tomar vs Union Of India Ministry Of ... on 13 July, 2017

He submitted that, the ratio in Monu Tomar's case (supra) was on identical facts and squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. He argued that, the petitioners herein had relied on the finding of the Gujarat High Court with which the Apex Court had not agreed. According to the petitioners herein, there was no case of mass copying. There is no evidence of leakage of papers. The administrative irregularities noticed cannot be equated with the malpractices. Then, Mr Shah, the learned Counsel referred to the discrepancies pointed out in the vigilance report and submitted that, these are not the discrepancies worth consideration. He submitted that, the space provided for signature was small and, therefore, some signatures were in compressed form. The variation in the signatures is on account of such compression. He argued that, the photographs on Aadhar Card or PAN Card are so bad that they hardly match with the actual photographs of the candidates. Merely because the photographs on Aadhaar Card or on PAN card do not match with the admission card or application form it will not indicate that there was impersonation on their part. With respect to OMR, he submitted that it was fault on ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 ::: 40 RA6.2018&Ors the part of agency involved in the recruitment process. The forms were provided of eight digits whereas many candidates were provided numbers of nine digits. The candidates were bound to record their nine digit numbers in the OMR column which was made only for eight digits. The candidates were constrained to make necessary adjustments by addition of a line for accommodating first or last digit. It is not a case of malpractice. He argued that, OMR number was not only the source to identify the candidate's form. The form provided BAR Code, photograph and signature to match the identity of person appearing for the examination. He submitted that, many candidates were having no email address, communication address or mobile numbers and if they have given email address, mobile number or communication address of their friends, it cannot be called as serious discrepancy raising doubt about malpractice and paper leakage. He criticized that, the academic score cannot be compared with the score in the examination. In the present case, the marks were given on objective basis when the candidates were supposed to select one out of multiple choices. Therefore, mere poor academic record cannot be a ground to suspect about the good scores in the examination. Similarly, he argued that, the students of other states might have prepared well for exam and therefore they might have scored well in Marathi language. Alternatively, he argued that ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2018 01:28:22 ::: 41 RA6.2018&Ors if there are any serious circumstances in respect of some candidates, their appointments can be withheld.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos And ... vs The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius And ... on 21 May, 1954

The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520, to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule".
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 831 - B Jagannadhadas - Full Document
1