Jaspal Kumar And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ORS
!"#
$" %&$ '''&
!
" #
$ %
!
&'()* ''(! )(*(+ ( ,- .(+/ + %
!
!
% )! * ) ,)*)- ,
. &/-
!
!
!
!
0
'
12
# '
3 %!%
/435/534 )!
0
'
12
!
!
0
'
12
"59. Which of the following is not an objective type question?
a. Fill in the blanks b. Correct in correct ones c. Multiple choice questions d. Matching type."
+
62 #
7
!!
% 7
! 25 # ) ( *. !
!
! 7
!
!
!
!
! %
%8
99) (
"Justification: (a) in option b, c and d candidate is to write (√) or (x) or (→) out in case of option the candidate is expected to write a word or a phase of his own.
'Fill in blank' type question may become an objective type when is given to choose from multiple choice. Here multiple choice option (c) has already been given as a separate option. Hence the option (a) is the best answer.
Committee Members:
1. Mrs. Baljeet Kaur, Subject Expert SCERT.
2. Mrs. Jaswinder Kaur, Lecturer DIET, Ropar.
3. Mrs. Nirmal, Lecturer, GISTC, Ropar."
!!
.
( !
"# % %
! ( !
.(
"We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fide has been alleged against the experts constituting the selection committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realize and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters." % % . $% & '(%$" $
)*'+ ,+' )!
-".
% %
"(i) As to whether it is permissible for the court to take the task of examiner/Selection Board upon itself and examine discrepancies and inconsistencies in the question papers and evaluation thereof? (ii) Whether the court has the power to pass a general order restraining the persons aggrieved to approach the court by filing a writ petition on any ground and depriving them of their constitutional rights to approach the court, particularly, when some other candidates had secured the same marks i.e. 89 and stood disqualified for being called for interview but could not approach the court? (iii) Whether in the absence of any statutory provision for revaluation, the court could direct for revaluation? After making reference to number of precedents, the Court finally held as under: "In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se
merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent No.1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court."
%
%
. prima facie !
! .
!
99 % !
! !
# %
! 7
) %
.
(
! ! ! .
(
):
; ! ( / .-
" 0'))&! & "$% 1&'$!)2))&! & $& &) -
3 # % !
!
. ( <
%
!
(
! !.
!
!
. "We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fide has been alleged against the experts constituting the selection committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realize and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters."
) %
7
% ! !
; ! 34 4
%!% !
% ! ! 44
) 56 )& )! ' "!! ')$% 1&'$!) $ ,))67 ')8(
/651/531 ,
. &=>=- (
%
"
!!
% !
(
!
! %
!!
-''&/ 0$ #,
Naveen