Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (4.01 seconds)
B Irshad vs O.A 348/ on 28 July, 2011 cites

K. Channegowda And Others vs Karnataka Public Service Commission ... on 6 October, 2005

22. As regards the third question onwards, the contention of the senior counsel has substance. The subject matter being one and the same, if the same has been dealt with in the CPWD Manual in a particular chapter or paragraph, and if the same subject has been dealt with in the Works Manual in a different chapter or paragraph, it should not matter much. For what is to be seen is the subject matter and not the form or the para Number. The paper could be answered with the help of reference books and if the appilcants have answered such questions using the Works Manual, adequate marks could be given to such answers since the answer would be full save the paragraph No. Which would be different compared to CPWD Manual. If marks of 3 to 5 out of 20 is given, despite the subsance being the same, there appears some good ground for revaluation. As it has been demonstrated through various annexures that there was revaluation in certain cases, such a revaluation not being totally barred, certainly revaluation of these answer sheets could be permitted, but at the same time without disturbing the result of those who had already qualified. Thus, following the pattern followed in the case of K. Channegowda vs Karnataka Public Service Commission (2005) 12 SCC 688 revaluation of paper V could be got conducted on a random basis to first ascertain whether the valuation was conducted only with reference to CPWD Manual or even answers written with the help of Works Manual had been awarded suitable marks. In case such a valuation had taken place, then there need not be any further revaluation. However, if the works Manual had not been considered, then, paper V in respect of those candidates who had failed only in that paper in Kerala Circle should be revalued through some other examiner and the result thereof be taken into account for selection and if there be candidates who could be selected, these be adjusted against the vacancies available from out of the 172 vacancies for which the exam had been conducted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 43 - B P Singh - Full Document

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

This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, wherein this Court rejected the contention that in the absence of the provision for revaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/revaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 39- 40 & 42, paras 14 & 16) "14. ... It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. ...
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 990 - V B Eradi - Full Document

Dr. Muneeb Ul Rehman Haroon And Ors vs Government Of Jammu And Kashmir State ... on 13 August, 1984

"7. ... Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for revaluation of his answer book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for revaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks." (emphasis added) A similar view has been reiterated in Muneeb-Ul-Rehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of J&K State, Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda, Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar, W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das and Sahiti v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 107 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

The President Board Of Secondary ... vs D. Suvankar & Anr on 14 November, 2006

"7. ... Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for revaluation of his answer book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for revaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks." (emphasis added) A similar view has been reiterated in Muneeb-Ul-Rehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of J&K State, Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda, Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar, W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das and Sahiti v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 201 - A Pasayat - Full Document

The Secretary, West Bengal Council Of ... vs Ayan Das & Ors on 28 September, 2007

"7. ... Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for revaluation of his answer book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for revaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks." (emphasis added) A similar view has been reiterated in Muneeb-Ul-Rehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of J&K State, Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda, Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar, W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das and Sahiti v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 228 - A Pasayat - Full Document

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

"7. ... Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for revaluation of his answer book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for revaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks." (emphasis added) A similar view has been reiterated in Muneeb-Ul-Rehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of J&K State, Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda, Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar, W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das and Sahiti v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 197 - J M Panchal - Full Document

H.P.Public Service Commission vs Mukesh Thakur & Anr on 25 May, 2010

13. Counsel for the respondents referred to certain decisions to hammer home his point that the applicants cannot be permitted to raise such an issue for either cancellation of the examination or revaluation of answer papers. He had referred to a decision of the CAT, Madras Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 76 of 2011 wherein an identical matter has been dismissed by the CAT. He has also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs Mukesh Thakur and another (2010) 6 SCC 759 wherein it has been held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 842 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Kumari Anamica Mishra And Anr. Etc. Etc vs U.P. Public Service ... on 9 November, 1989

25. On such findings the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the award of marks to the candidates did not appear to be fair resulting in the vitiation of the merit list. But the Tribunal following the principles laid down in Anamica Mishra v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad held that the entire examination need not be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case. Fairness could be ensured if the answer scripts were revalued after taking necessary precautions to ensure fairness. It, therefore, passed an order for fresh valuation of all the answer scripts laying down guidelines which have been earlier referred to in this judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 34 - M Rangnath - Full Document
1