Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.29 seconds)
Shraddha Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 May, 2024 cites

Ajay Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar on 17 March, 1994

''19. The submissions made by Mr Rao are not without merit. Given the nature of the defect in the answer key the most natural and logical way of correcting the evaluation of the scripts was to correct the key and get the answer scripts re-evaluated on the basis thereof. There was, in the circumstances, no compelling reason for directing a fresh examination to be held by the Commission especially when there was no allegation about any malpractice, fraud or corrupt motives that could possibly vitiate the earlier examination to call for a fresh attempt by all concerned. The process of re-evaluation of the answer scripts with Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 30 reference to the correct key will in addition be less expensive apart from being quicker. The process would also not give any unfair advantage to anyone of the candidates on account of the time lag between the examination earlier held and the one that may have been held pursuant to the direction of the High Court [Ajay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 918 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 133 - B P Reddy - Full Document

University Grants Commission & Anr vs Neha Anil Bobde(Gadekar) on 19 September, 2013

60. Similarly, in case of University Grants Commission and another Vs. Neha Anil Bobde (supra), in para 31, Supreme Court has held that the opinion expressed by the expert academic bodies should be taken into consideration, because normally it is wise and safe for the Court to leave the decision of the academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, but in the present case, the material produced by the experts and the expert examining body of the PSC speaks against them as has been discussed and pointed out above and, therefore, when their own material on face of it speaks against them, then still leaving the matter to the expert bodies, will cause injustice and prejudice to the thousands and thousands of the candidates who appeared in the examination and that cannot be the object of any law, because all citizens are equal in the eyes of law before a court of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 172 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Richal vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission on 3 May, 2018

62. Even the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Ankit Tiwari (supra), categorically lays down that publication of key answer is done to achieve transparency and objections to the key answers are to be examined by experts and, thereafter corrective measures are to be taken and should have been on the basis of the correct answer, should not be limited only to those candidates who had approached court, but should be extended to all candidates since default does not lie, but with the examining body, and then reference to the judgment of Supreme Court in Richal and others Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others (supra), PSC is relevant for the present case and, therefore, when this ratio is examined, then it is necessary to point out that as far as question in regard to Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India is concerned provisional answer key gave right answer as 'Jaipur'. Therefore, there was no occasion for the candidates to file objection to the model Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 50 provisional answer key and, therefore, the submission made by Shri Prashant Singh, that if no objection was raised, then it cannot be raised subsequently is not made out, because if the model provisional answer itself mentioned 'Jaipur' as the correct answer, then there was no occasion for those, who had attempted 'Jaipur' as the correct option to file objection before the PSC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 205 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Jha & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 September, 2017

57. As far as law laid down in case of Ashok Kumar (supra) is concerned, that is in a different context. That judgment in para 13, which has been referred to by Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior Advocate, precludes a candidate to challenge the procedure of examination after atempting an examination i.e. after participating in the examination, a candidate is excluded from challenging the procedure of examination. But, that does not preclude him from challenging the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 47 change in the model answer key at the behest of experts or on any other grounds or from challenging the correctness of a question, because that can be challenged only after a candidate has undertaken an examination, otherwise he is supposed to be foreigner to the examination and is not supposed to know the question and/or is otherwise not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the question.
Patna High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 37 - J Saran - Full Document

Chandra Prakash Tiwari And Ors vs Shakuntala Shukla And Ors on 9 May, 2002

32. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar and another Vs. State of Bihar and others [(2017) 4 SCC 357] and reading para 13, it is submitted that "Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari Vs. Shakuntala Shukla [(2002) 6 SCC 127], has laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. Thus, it is submitted that principles of estoppel will apply and petitioners after having participated in the selection process are not entitled to raise any issue in regard to the correctness of the answer key.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 400 - U C Banerjee - Full Document

Piara Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 4 October, 1977

36. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior cousnel also places reliance on a Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 38 Division Bench decision of this High Court in Mayank Dwivedi Vs. M.P. Public Service Commission and others in Writ Appeal No.1728 of 2023, decided on 25.10.2023, and reading para 3, submits that since the final answer keys are being prepared by the body of experts, the same can neither be challenged nor to be interfered with in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Piara Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 452; Systopic Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Dr. Prein Gupta, 1994 Suppl.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 159 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Systopic Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd vs Dr Prem Gupta.J.) on 22 September, 1993

36. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior cousnel also places reliance on a Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 22-05-2024 19:20:51 38 Division Bench decision of this High Court in Mayank Dwivedi Vs. M.P. Public Service Commission and others in Writ Appeal No.1728 of 2023, decided on 25.10.2023, and reading para 3, submits that since the final answer keys are being prepared by the body of experts, the same can neither be challenged nor to be interfered with in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Piara Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 452; Systopic Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Dr. Prein Gupta, 1994 Suppl.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 34 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 29 March, 2006

(1) SCC 160; Akhil Bhartiya Gosewa Sangh vs. State of A.P., 2006(4) SCC 162 and Sunflag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. vs. State of M.P. reported in (2019) 1 MPLJ 689 as well as the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nitin Pathak vs. State of M.P. and others (W.A.No.581 of 2017) decided on 04.09.2017 wherein the Full Bench of this Court has held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 136 - T Chatterjee - Full Document
1   2 Next