Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.46 seconds)
Mr. Basharat Saleem vs Jk High Court Through Registrar General on 20 November, 2018 cites

Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth Etc on 17 July, 1984

As observed by this Court in Maharastra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, it is in the public interest that the results of public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and re- evaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process. The Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It would be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities end grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to pragmatic one were to be propounded. In the above premises, it is to be considered how far the Board has assured a zero defect system of evaluation, or a system which is almost fool-proof".
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 990 - V B Eradi - Full Document

Sahiti & Ors vs Chancellor,Ntr.Univ.Of Health Sc.& ... on 22 October, 2008

7. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sahiti & Ors v. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R University of Health Sciences and Ors., reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 879, is totally misplaced. In the judgment aforesaid, it is, nowhere, held that the examinee, if dissatisfied with the evaluation of his answer scripts, can claim, as a matter of right, re-evaluation of his answer scripts. The careful perusal of the judgment aforesaid would demonstrate that while the Supreme Court conceded power of re-evaluation in favour of examination conducting authority/examiner under certain set of circumstances SWP No.167 of 2017 Page 5 of 6 but categorically provided that no such power inheres in the examinee. The results of public examination, when published, should have some finality attached to them and if at the instance of any unsuccessful and dissatisfied examinees the inspection/re-evaluation is permitted, as of right, it would lend to indefinite uncertainty to the process. The evaluation is a job best left for the experts and unless there are compelling reasons the Courts would be reluctant to substitute their own views as to what they feel would have been wise, prudent and proper. In the instant case, it is not the grievance of the petitioner that evaluation of the answer scripts has been done contrary to the norms fixed by the examining body nor learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has been able to point out anything glaring in the process of evaluation that would shock the conscience of this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 197 - J M Panchal - Full Document
1