Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.63 seconds)
Constable Maha Singh vs Delhi Police & Anr. on 3 October, 2011 cites

H.P.Public Service Commission vs Mukesh Thakur & Anr on 25 May, 2010

In LPA No.595/2010 decided on 25th August, 2010 a Division Bench of this Court had declined the request for re-evaluation in absence of any provision under the Statute or statutory rules and regulation by relying on H.P.Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr, MANU/SC/0401/2010; Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, B.P.S.C.Patna, AIR 2004 SC 4116 and Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr.v. Paritosh Bhupeshkurmar Sheth & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1543. In any case, an answer book being evaluated by the process of OMR, even on re-evaluation of the answer book, the result would be the same. The petitioner has not been able to establish that his answer WP(C) 7313 of 2011 Page 10 of 12 book had been tampered with or that his answers had been changed or modified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 842 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

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

The learned counsel also relied on The Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das & Ors, AIR 2007 SC 3098; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkurmar Sheth & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1543 and Central Board of Secondary Education v. Ms. Manisha Surana & Anr. AIR 1998 Delhi 406 to contend that the Court should not normally direct the production of answer scripts for the inspection of the petitioner and that it is in public interest that the results of public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If any inspection or verification in the presence of the candidates and re-evaluation is to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking etc. of the candidates besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 990 - V B Eradi - Full Document

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

In LPA No.595/2010 decided on 25th August, 2010 a Division Bench of this Court had declined the request for re-evaluation in absence of any provision under the Statute or statutory rules and regulation by relying on H.P.Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr, MANU/SC/0401/2010; Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, B.P.S.C.Patna, AIR 2004 SC 4116 and Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr.v. Paritosh Bhupeshkurmar Sheth & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1543. In any case, an answer book being evaluated by the process of OMR, even on re-evaluation of the answer book, the result would be the same. The petitioner has not been able to establish that his answer WP(C) 7313 of 2011 Page 10 of 12 book had been tampered with or that his answers had been changed or modified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 410 - G P Mathur - Full Document

The Secretary, West Bengal Council Of ... vs Ayan Das & Ors on 28 September, 2007

The learned counsel also relied on The Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das & Ors, AIR 2007 SC 3098; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkurmar Sheth & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1543 and Central Board of Secondary Education v. Ms. Manisha Surana & Anr. AIR 1998 Delhi 406 to contend that the Court should not normally direct the production of answer scripts for the inspection of the petitioner and that it is in public interest that the results of public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If any inspection or verification in the presence of the candidates and re-evaluation is to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking etc. of the candidates besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 228 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Central Board Of Secondary Education vs Ms. Manisha Surana And Anr. on 4 February, 1997

The learned counsel also relied on The Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das & Ors, AIR 2007 SC 3098; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkurmar Sheth & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1543 and Central Board of Secondary Education v. Ms. Manisha Surana & Anr. AIR 1998 Delhi 406 to contend that the Court should not normally direct the production of answer scripts for the inspection of the petitioner and that it is in public interest that the results of public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If any inspection or verification in the presence of the candidates and re-evaluation is to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking etc. of the candidates besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - M Sarin - Full Document

Constable Maha Singh S/O Om Prakash vs Delhi Police Through on 19 July, 2011

1. The petitioner, a constable of the Delhi Police has challenged the order dated 19th July, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in the original application, bearing OA No.2542/2011 titled as „Constable Maha Singh v. Delhi Police through Commissioner of Police & Anr.‟ dismissing his original application wherein he sought the relief that his original answer sheet for the examination of Head Constable be re-examined under his personal supervision or under the supervision of higher ups of the department.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1