Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)
Sunil Kumar vs D/O Revenue on 29 July, 2025 cites

Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth Etc on 17 July, 1984

7. The question arises for consideration in this O.A is about revaluation or re-examination of answer sheets. We are not at all inclined to accept the applicant's claim for correction of result, which is on the basis of presumption that he has done well but has wrongly been awarded lesser marks. There is always a presumption that every act has been done correctly. There is also no provision or rule empowering the respondents to recheck / re-evaluate the answer sheet of the examination in question. Our view finds support from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc.etc. AIR 1984 SC 1543, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for re-evaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. Apex Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for Page 5 of 8 ANAND 2025.08.01 PRAKASH 16:33:18 DUBEY +05'30' 6 rechecking/verification/re-evaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Apex Court held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 990 - V B Eradi - Full Document

The President Board Of Secondary ... vs D. Suvankar & Anr on 14 November, 2006

9. A similar view has been reiterated in President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr. Vs. D. Suvankar & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 603 and Sahiti & Ors. Vs. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 599. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in absence of any provision under the Statute or Statutory Rules/Regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 201 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Prem Prakash Sinha vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 January, 2016

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents have failed to evaluate properly the answer book of the applicant and not awarded marks for the correct answer for the question no. 6. Thus, the evaluators violated the Instruction to Valuers for Income Tax Examination and not awarded separate marks for the parts/subparts/steps thereof and awarded zero marks out of 20 marks. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the action of the respondents in rejecting the representations of the applicant on the ground that rule does not allow for re-evaluation of answer books is discriminatory as the DIT (IT), New Delhi had revised the result of the ITO-2012 Examination vide order dated 20.05.2013 in similar circumstances in which answer of five objective questions of Paper-I were found erroneous. Learned counsel for the applicant has also cited the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh dated 07.02.2013 passed in W.P. No. 2663/2012 - Prem Prakash Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors and the order of this Tribunal dated 24.07.2024 passed in OA No. 540/2017 - Deepak Kumar & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors and submitted that the OA may be allowed and the relief may be given to the applicant.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - N Sinha - Full Document

Shri Deepak Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 September, 2023

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents have failed to evaluate properly the answer book of the applicant and not awarded marks for the correct answer for the question no. 6. Thus, the evaluators violated the Instruction to Valuers for Income Tax Examination and not awarded separate marks for the parts/subparts/steps thereof and awarded zero marks out of 20 marks. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the action of the respondents in rejecting the representations of the applicant on the ground that rule does not allow for re-evaluation of answer books is discriminatory as the DIT (IT), New Delhi had revised the result of the ITO-2012 Examination vide order dated 20.05.2013 in similar circumstances in which answer of five objective questions of Paper-I were found erroneous. Learned counsel for the applicant has also cited the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh dated 07.02.2013 passed in W.P. No. 2663/2012 - Prem Prakash Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors and the order of this Tribunal dated 24.07.2024 passed in OA No. 540/2017 - Deepak Kumar & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors and submitted that the OA may be allowed and the relief may be given to the applicant.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document
1