Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.33 seconds)
Shivin Chaudhary vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 10 July, 2015 cites

Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs Chairman, Bihar Public Service ... on 6 August, 2004

3. Reference in the petition itself is made to, (a) Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission AIR 2004 SC 4116 to contend that in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation, no candidate has any right thereto; and, (ii) Rupinder Singh Vs. The Punjab State Board of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Chandigarh W.P.(C) No.6073/2015 & W.P.(C) No. 6066/2015 Page 3 of 21 2001 (1) SLR 759 (Full Bench) (Punjab & Haryana) to contend that Brochure in relation to admission to any course has got the force of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 410 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Rupinder Singh And Others vs The Punjab State Board Of Technical ... on 5 March, 1997

3. Reference in the petition itself is made to, (a) Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission AIR 2004 SC 4116 to contend that in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation, no candidate has any right thereto; and, (ii) Rupinder Singh Vs. The Punjab State Board of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Chandigarh W.P.(C) No.6073/2015 & W.P.(C) No. 6066/2015 Page 3 of 21 2001 (1) SLR 759 (Full Bench) (Punjab & Haryana) to contend that Brochure in relation to admission to any course has got the force of law.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 26 - S Kumar - Full Document

Master Rajat Mann vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 7 May, 2015

27. As far as the challenge to the procedure adopted by the respondent University in rectifying / revising the result is concerned, it cannot be lost sight of that the Supreme Court has by judicial pronouncements laid down the schedule for examination to MBBS course and the last date for such admissions. The time available for revision / rectification is thus limited. I even otherwise am not agreeable with the contention that the respondent W.P.(C) No.6073/2015 & W.P.(C) No. 6066/2015 Page 19 of 21 University prior to rectifying the result was required to give an opportunity of hearing to all the candidates appearing in the examination. Thousands if not lakhs of students appear in such examinations and it is not practically feasible to give any such opportunity. No such right of hearing also, in my view exists in favour of the candidates. The respondent University, vide notice dated 25th June, 2015 gave an opportunity to all the candidates to inspect the question paper answer key and their respective OMR answer sheet. This was in accordance with directions in Rajat Mann & Rajeev Kumar (supra) If the petitioner or any other candidate on any such inspection discovered any mistake in the answer key, he / she could have pointed out the same. The petitioner did not choose to do so. The contentions now raised that the petitioner is entitled to verify the result by examining the OMR sheets of all the candidates is just a wild attempt to have the examination, in which the petitioner assesses herself to have not done well, annulled and to have a second chance / opportunity to improve her result. The same cannot be allowed.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Tanvi Sarwal vs Central Board Of Secondary Education . on 15 June, 2015

24. As far as the reliance by the senior counsel for the petitioner on the recent dicta of the Supreme Court in Tanvi Sarwal (supra) is concerned, a perusal of paras 15&16 of the said judgment shows that the situation there was entirely different. There, on investigation, facts suggesting mass scale cheating with use of electronic media had been unearthed and owing whereto it was felt that it was impossible to determine a fair result of the examination. Such is not the case here. The respondent University has corrected / revised the result in accordance with the recommendations of the Expert Committee.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 12 - Cited by 38 - A Roy - Full Document

M.S. Grewal & Anr vs Deep Chand Sood & Ors on 24 August, 2001

18. It was further enquired, whether the petitioner, in law, can be granted the relief of admission when as per the revised / corrected result she may not be entitled to admission. To do so, in my view would amount to converting into reality what was said by Charles Dickens in a work of fiction „Oliver Twist‟ that "law is an ass". Supreme Court in M.S. Grewal Vs. Deep Chand Sood (2001) 8 SCC 151 held that, technicalities there might be many but the justice oriented approach ought not to be thwarted on the basis of such technicality since it cannot be and ought not to outweigh the course of justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 397 - Full Document

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

20. I may however add that the Supreme Court in Sahiti Vs. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences (2009) 1 SCC 599 rejected the contention that in the absence of specific provision, re-evaluation cannot be ordered. It was held that re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of specific provision is perfectly legal and permissible. It was further held that the Vice Chancellor is the conscience keeper of the University and is entrusted with the responsibility of overall administration of academic as well as non academic affairs. A distinction was also drawn between the right of the student or candidate to claim re-examination / re-evaluation and the power of the Board / University to order re-evaluation of answer books if factual scenario so demands. It was further held that when it is found that award of marks by an examiner is not fair or that the examiner is not careful in evaluating the answer scripts, re-evaluation may be found necessary.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 197 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Onkar Lal Bajaj Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Anr. Etc. Etc on 20 December, 2002

"10. No case for annulment of examination is made out. Competitive examinations, holding whereof takes mammoth organization, cannot be annulled on mere conjectures and surmises. It cannot be lost sight of that annulment of examination and consequent holding of fresh examination (which takes re-organization and hence time) ultimately delays the entire admission process and commencement of academic session and which in turn has cascading effect on subsequent years or reduces the length of the academic year. The same also results in the students being inconvenienced and being unable to make choices, of admission in other colleges / universities or subjects, which they can make with timely declaration of results and admission. Holding of fresh examination also, besides costing money, takes considerable effort. Annulment of examination without proper cause will thus be detrimental W.P.(C) No.6073/2015 & W.P.(C) No. 6066/2015 Page 14 of 21 to the University as well as the large number of candidates taking the examination and against the public interest and would amount to a cure worse than disease. The Supreme Court in Onkar Lal Bajaj Vs. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 673 while dealing with a challenge to the en masse cancellation of all allotments of retail outlets for marketing of petrol and diesel and finding that the only reason for such en masse cancellation was that a „controversy‟ had been raised in the media and that there was otherwise no application of mind and none of the allotments made had been examined held such en masse cancellation to be arbitrary and contrary to public interest. It was held that the mere reason that a 'controversy' had been raised by itself could not clothe the Government with the power to pass such a drastic order which has a devastating effect on a large number of people. It was held that such en masse cancellation could be resorted to only on finding a large number of such selections to be tainted and segregation of good and bad being difficult and a time consuming affair. The examinations are thus not to be annulled lightly, on the mere asking of any one with the allegations of possibility of the same having been corrupted. Only when it is sufficiently established that the examination though purportedly conducted was no examination and can no longer be treated as a test of proficiency of students taking the same or had ceased to be competitive and that the defects / malpractices therein had seeped to such an extent as to make it impossible for the examining authority or the Court to determine a fair result of the examination would the Court, in my opinion, be justified in annulling an examination.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 50 - H K Sema - Full Document

Ashok Lenka vs Rishi Dikshit & Ors on 21 April, 2006

11. The Supreme Court in Ashok Lenka Vs. Rishi Dikshit (2006) 9 SCC 90 though concerned with en masse cancellation of excise licenses held that though in law it is permissible to cancel the entire selection process if it is held that the same is tainted to such an extent that it may not be possible to separate the innocent from the tainted ones, as for example in a case of mass cheating adopted by the W.P.(C) No.6073/2015 & W.P.(C) No. 6066/2015 Page 15 of 21 students in a Board Examination, should not be resorted to if it is possible to separate the innocent from the tainted ones. It was held that en masse cancellation resorted to without a cause would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 38 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu & Anr on 30 July, 2003

Similarly in Union of India Vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu AIR 2003 SC 4222 held that applying an unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of the selected candidates no infirmity could be found with reference to others is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go bye to contextual considerations and throwing to winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably required to meet the situation. It was held that the Competent Authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, rendering the decision of cancellation to be irrational.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 268 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next