Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.84 seconds)Priyanka Sharma And Ors vs State ( Panchayati Raj Dep )Ors on 2 July, 2013
32.3 That in the disputed answers before this Court, out of which
illustrations of a few are noted above, this Court is of the view
that in the absence of any specific arguments and/or debate, no
prudent man could come to the conclusion that the answers
adopted by the RSSB are erroneous, moreso demonstrably
erroneous. For reference regarding the rationale adopted by the
experts qua the other disputed answers, reliance can be placed
upon the compliance report furnished by the respondent-RSSB in
pursuance to the order dated 12.09.2023, as is placed in the
connected petition namely S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
8893/2023 titled as Priyanka Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan
and Ors.
Suman Yadav And Ors vs State (Panchayati Raj Dep)Ors on 11 May, 2012
placed reliance upon the dictum enunciated in Kanpur University
(Supra), D.B. SAW No. 847/2022 titled as Suman and Ors.
vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., Guru Nayak Dev University
vs. Saumil Garg and Ors. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 749,
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 847/2022 titled as Suman
and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)
(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:49:14 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:25504] (12 of 31) [CW-10358/2023]
No. 1092/2015 titled as Pankaj Oswal and Ors. vs. RPSC and
Ors., D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 497/2022 titled as RPSC
and Ors. vs. Gyanendra Sharma and Ors. amongst others.
Chairman-Cum-Managing Director vs Rahul Singh Sakya on 15 February, 2013
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rahul Singh (Supra) expressly
delineated the eventualities where the Court may exercise judicial
intervention/scrutiny qua the answers ascertained by the experts,
albeit sparingly. The relevant extract of the judgment is
reproduced herein-under:-
Bihar Staff Selection Commission . vs Arun Kumar on 6 May, 2020
13. As a result, whilst praying for the dismissal of the present
batch of petitions, learned counsel for the respondents placed
reliance upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well the
Division Bench of this Court as enunciated in Himachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur reported in
(2010) 6 SCC 759, Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. vs. State of
U.P. and Ors. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, Uttar Pradesh
Public Service Commission, through its Chairman and Anr.
vs. Rahul Singh and Anr. reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254,
Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and
Ors. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309, Bihar Staff Selection
Commission and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors. reported in
(2020) 6 SCC 362 and Kavita Bhargava vs. Registrar,
Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur: D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.2253/2022, amongst others.
H.P.Public Service Commission vs Mukesh Thakur & Anr on 25 May, 2010
17. On the aspect of judicial review, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Mukesh Thakur (Supra) held as under:-
Orissa Education Act, 1969
Surjan Lal Dhawan S/O Prabhu Dayal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 December, 2022
26. Conclusively, to summarize the foregoing principles, reliance
can also be placed upon the dictum of this Court as previously
enunciated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4777/2021 titled as
Surjan Lal Dhawan and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan where it
was held that a court carrying on the exercise of judicial review
merely scrutinizes the process in question-administrative or
statutory, but necessarily public in its outcome, to see if it was
arrived at in a procedurally fair and regular manner, free from
illegality, not motivated by malice or mala fides or not so
manifestly unreasonable in its conclusion that no reasonable
individual placed in that situation would arrive at such a
conclusion.
1