TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court overturns adverse remarks against Vice Chancellor, emphasizing lack of petitioner standing.</h1> <h3>K.R. SRINIVAS Versus R.M. PREMCHAND</h3> K.R. SRINIVAS Versus R.M. PREMCHAND - 1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 114, 1994 (6) SCC 620, 1997 (10) JT 608, 1994 (4) SCALE 436 Issues involved: Appeal against High Court order allowing writ petition challenging exam results based on public interest, expunction of adverse remarks against father of appellant.Summary:Issue 1: High Court's Jurisdiction in Public InterestThe Supreme Court refrained from elaborating on the facts due to discomfort with the High Court's invocation of jurisdiction in public interest when the appellant was cornered and cross-checking became impossible.Issue 2: Allegations of Result ManipulationIn 1988, the appellant's son appeared for a Bachelor of Marine Engineering exam under the Vice Chancellor's tenure. After revaluation, the son received higher marks leading to a first division and a degree. Allegations of result manipulation surfaced, prompting a writ petition in 1991 challenging the results on procedural irregularities and manipulation grounds.Issue 3: Examination of Answer BooksDuring the hearing, the Supreme Court aimed to inspect the answer books and question papers to assess the result improvement. However, it was revealed that the answer books were destroyed in 1989, rendering examination impossible. Despite the setback, the Court decided to set aside the High Court's order, emphasizing the importance of clean intentions in public interest petitions.ConclusionThe Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision and expunging adverse remarks against the Vice Chancellor. The Court highlighted the lack of standing of the writ petitioner in moving the High Court in public interest due to the destruction of answer books, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants.
TaxTMI 