Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)
Amit Sarin vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 8 July, 2016 cites

Vice Chancellor And Anr vs Dr. Shyam Bihari Gupta (Associate ... on 8 May, 2015

Reliance was rightly placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in 'Kanpur University through Vice-Chancellor and others Vs. Samir Gupta and others (1983) 4 Supreme Court Cases 309. The Apex Court has held that in case of wrong answer key furnished by the paper- setters, the candidates could not be left high and dry and the best way was to publish the answer key, so that the sense of fairness in publishing the key answer would give the candidates an opportunity to have a closer look at the system of examinations. If any defect in the answer key is drawn , the University should take timely action. The relevant paragraphs read as under:-
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 60 - N Sinha - Full Document

Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors vs State Of Chhatisgarh & Ors on 9 July, 2013

The answer is 'yes' or 'no'. That is why the questions have to be clear and unequivocal. Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it." A similar view was also taken in Vikas Pratap Singh and 8 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2016 00:03:34 ::: CWP No.18896 of 2012 -9- others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others' 2013 (4) SCC 494 in which it was held that for proper conduction of competitive examination and to recheck results, it would be highly unjust and unfair to deny the benefit of appointment on an erroneous evaluation of answer scripts. Resultantly, the decision of the board in re-evaluating of the answer key was upheld. The relevant para reads as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 442 - Full Document

Chairman, J&K State Board Of Education vs Feyaz Ahmed Malik & Ors on 28 January, 2000

"16. In respect of the respondent-Board's propriety in taking the decision of re-evaluation of answer scripts, we are of the considered view that the respondent-Board is an independent body entrusted with the duty of proper conduct of competitive examinations to reach accurate results in fair and proper manner with the help of Experts and is empowered to decide upon re- evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of any specific provision in that regard, if any irregularity at any stage of evaluation process is found. (See: , (2000) 3 SCC 59 and Chairman, J & K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and others., (2009) 1 SCC 599). It is settled law that if the irregularities in evaluation could be noticed and corrected specifically and undeserving select candidates be identified and in their place deserving candidates be included in select list, then no illegality would be said to have crept in the process of re- evaluation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 395 - M J Rao - Full Document

Sahil Aggarwal vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 May, 2012

However, it is not denied that the private respondent has been working on the said post and has been appointed in pursuance of the said selection process. More than 5 years have expired since then, and it 10 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2016 00:03:34 ::: CWP No.18896 of 2012 -11- would be unfair at this stage to set aside his appointment or recall him from the said post and disturb the appointment which has been already made. Counsel for the private respondent has rightly relied upon the judgment of this Court in 'Sahil Aggarwal Vs. State of Punjab and others' 2014 (3) SCT 813 to that effect.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1