Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)

Mahendra Pal vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 September, 2016

The applicant has also placed reliance on the judgement of this Bench of the Tribunal in O.A./1469/2016 (Mahendra Kumar Pal vs. UOI & ors) decided on 08.07.2024, wherein the impugned order cancelling the candidature of the applicant on the allegation of violating the instruction in the OMR sheet was set aside relying on the case laws cited by the applicant in the cases of (i) Vipin Kumar Tiwari & Another Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No. 24535 of 2017 on 30.4.2019 ; (ii) Kumkum Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No. 54845 of 2014 on 3.11.2020 and (iii) Rajendra Singh Vs. Union of India & Others decided by CAT, Allahabad Bench in O.A. No. 190 of 2014 on 12.2.2021. The relevant quotations from the aforesaid order is being reproduced below:-
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - V Bishnoi - Full Document

Binit Chandan Son Of Siddheshwar Prasad vs Vice Chancellor, Allahabad ... on 22 September, 2006

5.​ It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant actually did not indulge in impersonation. Impersonation also comes under the category of using unfair means and the law on the subject is very clear. A show cause notice was required to be issued and the reply of the applicant should have been called for, only thereafter, the examination cell could have passed the order. In the instant case neither any show cause notice was issued to the applicant nor his reply was called for. Thus, the principles of natural justice have not been complied with. In such a situation, the order canceling the applicant's candidature on the ground of impersonation cannot be sustained. Reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Binit Chandan Vs. Vice Chancellor, Allahabad University, Allahabad, 2007 (66) A.L.R. 8 (Summary) and Deepak Srivastava Vs. Vice Chancellor, Allahabad University, Allahabad and others, 2007 (66) A.L.R.29 (Summary).
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S N Srivastava - Full Document

Priyanka Kumari vs Jharkhand Academic Council Ranchi ... on 20 November, 2013

In Priyanka Kumar vs Jharkhand Academic Counsel & Anr (W.P. (C) No.5198 of 2013) [213:JHHC:13360], in which case also the petitioner's result was not published because she failed to put her signature in the OMR sheet and the applicant had claimed that it was a mere technical ground as her identity could also be verified from the counter foil of the Admit Card and the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi had directed the Chairman, JAC to consider the petitioner's representation ignoring the trifling defect/technicality and pass appropriate order within a stipulated time.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sachin Agarwal (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 July, 1998

The applicant has also relied on the case of Sachin Agarwal (Minor) vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [1999 AIR (All) 157] wherein the petitioner's result was cancelled as he was alleged to have indulged in unfair means and the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad held that "In the instant case, the question of inflicting punishment of cancellation of result did not arise as it has not been established beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner had adopted unfair means in writing answer to question No.3-Ga, above. The impugned order dated 6.12.1997 cancelling the result of the petitioner has, therefore, to be quashed."
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - O P Garg - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Singh vs The Union Of India East Central Railway ... on 18 September, 2017

In O.A. No./289/2017 (Rakesh Kumar vs. General Manager Northern Railway and ors.) decided on 10.11.2023, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, taking parity with other similar cases, had quashed the impugned order that cancelled the candidature of the applicant on the ground of violating an instruction in the OMR sheet as per which the bubble once darkened was not allowed to be erased with a blade or fluid.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1