Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.63 seconds)Directorate Of Film Festivals & Ors vs Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors on 11 April, 2007
(vii) this Court ought not to interfere with the said decision of the
University in the academic matters and selection process; reliance
in this regard is placed on All India Council for Technical
Education Vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan (2009) 11 SCC 726,
Director of Film Festivals Vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain (2007) 4 SCC
737 and on Sanchit Bansal Vs. Joint Admission Board (2012) 1
SCC 157;
Sanchit Bansal & Anr vs Joint Admission Board & Ors on 11 October, 2011
(vii) this Court ought not to interfere with the said decision of the
University in the academic matters and selection process; reliance
in this regard is placed on All India Council for Technical
Education Vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan (2009) 11 SCC 726,
Director of Film Festivals Vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain (2007) 4 SCC
737 and on Sanchit Bansal Vs. Joint Admission Board (2012) 1
SCC 157;
All India Institute Of Medical Sciences vs Vikrant Bhuria on 28 May, 2012
(viii) this Court also in judgment dated 28th May, 2012 in LPA
No.487/2011 titled All India Institute of Medical Sciences Vs.
Vikrant Bhuria upheld the contention of AIIMS that in case the
question papers are released, the same will lead to a situation
where the students with good memory and who can memorize the
previous years‟ questions will be selected rather than the one with
an analytical mind since the number of questions are limited and
LPA No.543/2014 Page 5 of 21
the same will frustrate the whole purpose of selecting the
meritorious candidates;
Union Public Service Commission vs Angesh Kumar & Ors. on 13 July, 2012
(a) judgment dated 13th July, 2012 of the Division Bench of this Court
in LPA No.229/2011 titled Union Public Service Commission Vs.
Angesh Kumar holding that there can be no secrecy or
confidentiality about the raw marks and the method of
scaling/actualization adopted by an examiner and that the objective
of RTI Act is transparency and accountability. It was further held
that examinee is entitled to satisfy himself/herself as to the fairness
and transparency of the examination and the selection procedure
and to maintain such fairness and transparency, disclosure of raw
marks, cut off marks and scaling method adopted is a must;
All India Council For Technical Edu vs Surinder Kumar Dhawan & Ors on 18 February, 2009
(vii) this Court ought not to interfere with the said decision of the
University in the academic matters and selection process; reliance
in this regard is placed on All India Council for Technical
Education Vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan (2009) 11 SCC 726,
Director of Film Festivals Vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain (2007) 4 SCC
737 and on Sanchit Bansal Vs. Joint Admission Board (2012) 1
SCC 157;
Union Of India vs Anita Singh on 31 October, 2013
(d) Union of India Vs. Anita Singh AIR 2014 Delhi 23 holding that
the expression "personal information" in Section 8(1)(j) of the Act
refers to the information personal to a third party held by the
public authority and not information relating to the information
seeker himself or the public authority;
Inst.Of Chartered Accountants Of India vs Shaunak H Sayta & Ors on 2 September, 2011
In our opinion the issue whether the question papers/ answer
sheets/answer keys fall in the said exemption is no longer res integra in terms
of the judgments in Shaunak H. Satya (supra) holding that furnishing of
information by an examining body, in response to a query under the RTI Act
may not be termed as an infringement of copyright. Though this Court in
Vikrant Bhuria distinguished Shaunak H. Satya, but in the facts of that case,
as noticed above and which are not applicable to the present case.
Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
(f) Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Aditya
Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 laying down that the provisions
of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the bye-