Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.31 seconds)The U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982
Abhijit Sen & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 6 December, 1983
By placing reliance on the
decision of Supreme Court in Abhijit Sen and others v. State of
U.P. and others3, learned senior counsel would submit that
question cannot be vague. He was referring to question no.8 in
Paper no.2 to emphasize his submission. He would submit that in
this question, as no range is indicated, whereas two orders passed
by the Bombay High Court were 'recent' only, the question is
vague. Learned senior counsel particularly referred to paragraph-4
of the judgment, wherein Supreme Court discussed the question
No.100. Supreme Court observed that question set up did not
refer to range with reference to which the candidate is called upon
1
(2018) 2 SCC 357
2
1983 4 SCC 309
3
1984(2) SCC 319
PNR,J WP 18834_18 & batch
8
to give his answer and in the absence of any reference to the range,
there was a confusion in choosing correct answer.
Union Of India & Ors vs Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu & Anr on 30 July, 2003
In Union of India vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu7,
subject matter was illegality in recruitment to the post of Constable
in CBI. Illegalities relate to valuation of answer sheets, such as,
awarding of marks to incorrect answers and not awarding marks to
correct answers. In the said manner, 31 candidates found to have
7
(2003) 7 SCC 285
PNR,J WP 18834_18 & batch
71
benefited and equal number were denied the selections. As seen
from the facts, the candidates who were benefited were identified
and the nature of malpractices was confined to them. There were
134 successful and 184 unsuccessful candidates. Supreme Court
noticed that there was no serious grievance of any malpractices as
such in the process of written examination - either by the
candidates or by those who actually conducted them. Supreme
Court held as under:
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ranvijay Singh And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 29 March, 2018
'A' statement is wrong. The candidate is required to choose
whether both or one of the statements are correct. The contention
of learned senior counsel that 'A' is right, whereas no option on 'A'
PNR,J WP 18834_18 & batch
33
statement was given, is not valid. As both the statements are
wrong, Option 2 is correct answer as chosen by PSC.
44.7.5. On a plain reading of question, statements listed
therein and relevant provisions of the Act, it cannot be said that
both statements are right. Thus, the decision of PSC to hold
option 2 as right answer can not be faulted. Even otherwise, as
observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranvijay Singh (supra)
Court should presume the correctness of the key answer and in
the event of doubt benefit should go to the PSC. Further, it cannot
be said that decision of PSC is palpably wrong.
44.8.1. Question 18 (Paper II: CD series) : The tribal unrest
which led to the demand for separate and autonomous states for
protecting tribal's unique cultural identity and other systems.
Options :