Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.24 seconds)

Dr. J. P. Kulshreshtha And Ors vs Chancellor, Allahabad University, Raj ... on 30 April, 1980

(v) Dr.J.P.Kulshrestha And Others v. Chancellor, Allahabad University And Others - (1980)3 SCC 418 (C) That a reasonable opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioners by the Examination Committee, before imposing the punishment. The quantum of punishment would have to be decided by an Expert Body, and this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may not substitute its view and impose lesser punishment, as per the settled position of law. The Circular dated 03.11.2010 of the respondent-University is in accordance with law, and is aimed at curbing malpractices in examinations which have to be dealt with strictly, so as to achieve higher standards of education. In the absence of Regulations, which have not yet been framed, the University has to conduct its day-to-day affairs by issuing executive instructions and the said Circular has been issued in exercise of executive powers, by the Competent Authority of the University. On the ground of proportionality, the following judgments have been referred to by the learned advocate for the respondent-University:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 253 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

26. It is now an accepted proposition of law that any statutory body which is entrusted by statute with discretion, must act fairly. It does not matter whether its functions are described as judicial or quasi-judicial on the one hand, or as administrative on the other. Even an administrative order, which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. Although the expression 'civil consequences' has not been defined anywhere, the observation made in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 at para-66 on page 440 is relevant in this context and reads as below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 Next