<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1987 (6) TMI 395 - MUMBAI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287103</link>
    <description>A practical examination assessment may be set aside and re-held where the examiner&#039;s discretion is exercised in bad faith or with mala fides, because assessment in a public examination is a public duty requiring fairness. The governing regulations were read as permitting amendment of results where the examination is affected by error, malpractice, fraud, improper conduct or comparable circumstances, and that list was treated as illustrative rather than exhaustive. Applying the civil standard of proof, the Court found the student had shown hostile animus and unfair marking in Physics practicals through surrounding evidence, including academic record, comparative marks, prior complaint and corroborative material. The practical examination was therefore directed to be conducted again.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2020 12:59:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=608560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (6) TMI 395 - MUMBAI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287103</link>
      <description>A practical examination assessment may be set aside and re-held where the examiner&#039;s discretion is exercised in bad faith or with mala fides, because assessment in a public examination is a public duty requiring fairness. The governing regulations were read as permitting amendment of results where the examination is affected by error, malpractice, fraud, improper conduct or comparable circumstances, and that list was treated as illustrative rather than exhaustive. Applying the civil standard of proof, the Court found the student had shown hostile animus and unfair marking in Physics practicals through surrounding evidence, including academic record, comparative marks, prior complaint and corroborative material. The practical examination was therefore directed to be conducted again.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287103</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>