Back
RAMESH SINHA, RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL
Naisha Ubeja D/o Dr. Navneet Singh Ubeja – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Health and Family Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – Respondent
ORDER :
Ramesh Sinha, CJ.
1. Heard Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondents No.3 & 4 as well as Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Standing Counsel for respondent No.5
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the incorrect evaluation of Question no. 141 carried out by Respondent no.2.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as deemed necessary as deem fit.”
3. Brief facts of the present case, are that, this is the second round of Litigation. Earlier, the petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing WPC No.3015/2024 with a grievance that the petitioner has attempted 180 questions, ou
Adherence to examination instructions is mandatory; deviations such as double bubbling justify evaluation outcomes, and courts should not interfere in such cases.
The court's decision emphasized the need for the petitioner to seek redressal through the appropriate forum, declining to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Court is to presume the correctness of answer key and proceed on that assumption. In the event of any doubt, benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
The evaluation undertaken by the examining bodies should not be viewed with suspicion unless it is prima facie established that it was not fair or transparent.
Standardized computerized evaluation process and unambiguous instructions for marking responses in UGC-NET examination.
Telangana State Public Service Commission - Power of Judicial review - Scope and Interference - Scope of interference of court in evaluation of answer scripts where candidates have committed errors o....
It cannot be expected that an enquiry be made by the Examining Body as to whose OMR sheet it is when no roll number is written thereon. Such enquiries if burdened on the examination body would entail....
Examination authorities must ensure the integrity of examination materials; errors in handling can lead to unjust penalties for candidates.
Allegations of examination tampering must be substantiated with credible evidence to establish a legal cause of action for relief.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
