Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.31 seconds)Kanpur University And Others vs Samir Gupta And Others on 27 September, 1983
In Kanpur University case, the Court
recommended a system of:
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde And ... vs Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale on 25 September, 1959
"30. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether
the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test
to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the
face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of
the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to
establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of
reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it
cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by
this Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun
Bhavanappa Tirumale. If the provision of a statutory rule is
reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one
construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to
interference by the writ court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation
of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof,
or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law,
which can be corrected by the writ court by issuance of writ of
certiorari."
H.P.Public Service Commission vs Mukesh Thakur & Anr on 25 May, 2010
"14. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has
deprecated the practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of the questions
by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not
permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and
answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed
the inter se merit of the candidates (H.P. Public Service Commission
v. Mukesh Thakur).
Richal vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission on 3 May, 2018
Reliance
was placed by the appellants on Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service
Commission. In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the
selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert
committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and
answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for
adjudication of the dispute in this case."
Article 67 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ran Vijay Singh vs State Of U.P. . on 11 December, 2017
In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to
the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the
questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from
that of the expert committee in its judgment dated 12-3-2019.
Article 94 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1