Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.32 seconds)State Of U.P. & Ors vs Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh Etc on 17 January, 1989
In State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh (supra) it was held that judicial review under Article 226 cannot be converted into an appeal. Judicial review is directed, against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision-making process. It was held that when an authority hands over its discretion to another body it acts ultra vires. Such an interference by a person or body extraneous to the power would plainly be contrary to the nature of the power conferred upon the authority.
The Board Of High School & Inter-Mediate ... vs Bagleshwar Prasad & Others on 27 August, 1962
A Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Triambakpati Tripathi (supra) relying on , Board of High School and Intermediate Education v. Bagleshwar Prashad had observed that in the matter of adoption of unfair means, direct evidence may some time be not available and in such cases the question will have to be considered in the light of probabilities and circumstantial evidence, however, such an order which is passed by the expert bodies, the High court does not sit in appeal over the decisions and the jurisdiction is limited to see if the order in question is not supported by any evidence at all. In this case, petitioner had given the square root of 45.5625 as 7.675 without doing rough work or calculation and given an explanation that he worked out the square root orally. The Examination Committee was of the opinion that it was not possible to accept the explanation given by the candidate which was rejected and consequently the inference drawn by the Committee that the candidate had found the square root by some improper method was accepted. In the present case the subject experts had opined that questions in CEE, 2005 could not be answered or solved without rough work. The petitioners in the present writ petitions have almost not carried out any rough work and some of them who have carried out some rough work, but it was found to be insufficient to answer all the questions in different subjects. The explanation to the contrary given by the petitioners have not been accepted and in the present facts and circumstances the opinion of subject experts that rough work was required to solve the questions cannot be faulted and differed with by this Court.
Union Of India vs H. C. Goel on 30 August, 1963
In Union of India v. H.C. Goel (supra) the Supreme Court had held that in respect of an order of dismissal of public servant, High Court can enquire whether the order is based on no evidence and mala fide exercise of power need not be shown to prove that the order is based on no evidence. It was held that the writ petition will be maintainable provided the dismissed employee is able to satisfy that the findings of enquiry were based on no evidence.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... vs K.S. Gandhi And Ors on 12 March, 1991
20. Relying on Maharastra State Board of S & H.S Education (supra) the petitioner contended that in administrative decisions, the order/decision may not contain reasons but the record should disclose reason which must be clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The Supreme Court had held in this judgment that the reasons are harbinger between the mind of the maker of the order to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Such reasons excludes the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious decision or conclusion and they assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion/decision reached. It was further observed that the order when it affects the right of a citizen or a person, irrespective of the fact, whether it is quasi-judicial or administrative, fair play requires recording of germane and relevant precise reasons. The recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned consciously applied its mind to the facts on record. It also aids the appellate or revisional authority or the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 to see whether the authority concerned acted fairly and justly to mete out justice to the aggrieved person.
Ranjit Thakur vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1987
Officer Thirukoyilur ; Union of India v. H.C. Goel ; Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana (1995) 5 SCC 762; Hanumant Govind Nargulkar v. State of M.P. ; Maharastra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education v. K.S. Gandhi and Ors. ; Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India ; Union of India v. G. Ganayutham and Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India .
Rangaswami vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 March, 1989
Relying on Bidyabhusahn Mohapatra , Bhagat Ram v. State of H.P. and Rangaswami v. State of T.N. 1989 Suppl (1) SCC 686, it was observed by the Apex Court that it has not been laid down that in no case, the High Court/Tribunal has the power to alter the penalty imposed by the disciplinary or appellate authority. However, disciplinary authorities being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose an appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude and gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/applicant authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.
Ram Phal Kundu vs Kamal Sharma on 23 January, 2004
In Ram Phal (supra) the dispute was as to which one of two persons was nominated by the Congress party. Relying on paras 13 and 13A of the symbols order, it was held that they lay down exhaustive and complete procedure for determining whether a candidate has been set up by a party or not.
Marathwada University vs Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan on 13 April, 1989
22. The learned Counsel for some other candidates Shri Anil Grover has also relied on Ram Phal Kundu v. Kamal Sharma 2004 II AD (S.C) 261; Marathadawada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan ; State of U.P v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh (1989) 2 SCC 50; Bhupendre Singh v. University of Delhi and Ors. 2001 II AD (Delhi) 293 and R.K. Sharma v. University of Delhi and Ors. 2004 IV AD (Delhi) 445 to contend that there was no emergent situations nor can be made out from the files and the Vice Chancellor was not authorized to act as the power is with the Executive Council. This plea was not taken by the Counsel in the writ petition filed by him on behalf of some other candidates who have also been awarded the punishment for use of unfair means in CEE, 2005 examination in similar circumstances as that of the petitioners. The counsel for petitioners in the present writ petitions had also adopted the arguments of counsel for other candidates and therefore, these pleas are also dealt with.