Show the cases, Nominal/Party Name wise
Show the cases, Date of Decision wise
LATEST CASES
(for last one month)
Total No. of Cases: 2

2016 SCCL.COM 193(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1720-24,1726-29, 1733-74, 1776-1828 and 1830-52 of 2016)
Nidhi Kaim Appellant versus State of Madhya Pradesh & other Etc Respondent  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 12/5/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Justice Chelameswar and Hon'ble Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.
Subject Index: Chelameswar, J.:-Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board Act, 2007 – Entrance examination for admissions into medical colleges for the year 2013 was conducted by the ‘Board’, however, on the same day, a crime came to be registered alleging commission of various offences pursuant to a large scale conspiracy in the context of the examination. The BOARD cancelled the results of 345 and 70 candidates respectively and as a consequence, admissions granted to the abovementioned students in various medical colleges stood cancelled – dismissal of writ petitions filed by the unsuccessful petitioners(students) – the appeals – whether the material relied upon by the BOARD for reaching the conclusion that the examination process was contaminated insofar as the appellants (and also some more students) are concerned and the appellants are the beneficiaries of such contaminated process, is tenable – to consider – the Supreme Court held that the case can fall within the category of exceptions to the rule of audi alteram partem if there is reliable material to come to the conclusion that the examination process is vitiated – the fact that the examination process was tampered with is relevant for administrative action and the said fact formed the foundation for the further enquiry for identifying the beneficiaries of such contaminated process, thus, nothing illogical or untenable in the conclusions drawn by the expert committee which formed the basis for the impugned action of the BOARD – there is nothing on record to say that the procedure adopted by the respondents or the evidence relied upon by the respondents for taking impugned action against the appellants could be characterized as illegal – Registry is directed to place the papers before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. PMT examination – for admission in MBBS Degree Course in various Government/Private Medical Colleges in State of M.P. – cancellation of exams results on the ground that the appellants and several other candidates resorted to unfair means in large scale by adopting planned strategy in answering their question papers – the High Court upheld the stand taken by the State/Vyapam and dismissed the writ petitions on the reasoning that the material seized was sufficient for the Expert Committee for coming to a conclusion that it was a case of "mass copying” found to have been done at a large scale by the appellants and other candidates by resorting to unfair means – the procedure adopted by the State/Vyapam cannot be said to be unfair or arbitrary and the action impugned is not in breach of rules of natural justice – held that once the examination is cancelled irrespective of ground on which it is cancelled then candidates whose results are cancelled have to repeat the examination whenever it is held and they cannot take any benefit of such examination like those candidates who successfully passed the examination with their merit – Since no equitable relief under Article 226 is called for, as a corollary, the question of invoking the extraordinary powers under Article 142 does not appear to be proper. Grant of any equitable relief may be construed as awarding premium to the appellants of what they did. It would demoralize the meritorious students who could not secure the admission on their merit due to the appellants’ entry in the Colleges by illegal means – the Supreme Court held that once the appellants are held responsible for cancellation of their results would affect the creditability in conducting the examination and cause more harm to the candidates as a whole and especially those who prepare for their examination sincerely and on their merit – appeals dismissed. ORDER In view of the divergence of opinion in terms of separate judgments, the Registry is directed to place the papers before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate further orders.

2016 SCCL.COM 166(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos.5035-5036 of 2016)
Kulwinder Pal Singh and Another Appellants versus State of Punjab and other Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 12/5/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Justice R. Banumathi .
Subject Index: Appointment – for filling up 52 posts of Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) – advertisement issued for – three candidates did not join service, the appellants submitted the representation to the High Court for issuance of appointment orders to them – the High Court dismissed the writ petitions holding that the appellants cannot claim any legal right in respect of the posts remained unfilled as the select list stood exhausted with the joining of the candidates to the extent of posts advertised – the appeals – It is fairly well-settled that merely because the name of a candidate finds place in the select list, it would not give him indefeasible right to get an appointment as well . Under Article 16(4B) of the Constitution of India, unfilled vacancies reserved for scheduled castes or scheduled tribes candidates are to be carried forward independent of ceiling of reservation of fifty per cent, therefore, the High Court was right in finding fault with the de-reservation of the seven posts which were filled by candidates belonging to general category – the Supreme Court held that merely because some persons have been granted benefit illegally or by mistake, it does not confer right upon the appellants to claim equality – the High Court rightly held that the candidates much more than the vacancies advertised have already been permitted to join and thus the appellants cannot claim any legal right in respect of the posts of reserved category remaining unfilled – impugned order affirmed – appeals dismissed.

go top | go back

Home | Membership form | Journals & Books | Services | About Us | Register with us | Supreme Court Caselaw |Consumer Caselaw | Latest Cases | Food Laws | Drug Laws | Labour Laws | Consumer Laws | Municipal Laws | Law Links | Suggestions/Complaints
For any query or help, mail us