/* remove this */
Showing posts with label Delhi Highcourt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Delhi Highcourt. Show all posts

Sunday, May 10, 2015

TET MANADORY HO SAKTA HAI MODEL SCHOOLS KE LEEYE

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - Model Schools mein TET Mandatory Kiye Jane Kee Sambhvna Badee, LT Grade mein bhee TET ho Sakta Hai Lagu  - 

Model School  Niyuktion ke Leeye TET Jaruree Nahin ye Single Bench Ne Kaha thaa, See order - http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com/2015/05/uptet-sarkari-naukri-news-18-april-2015.html

Aur Neeche Dee gayee Appeal mein Court ne Is Order ko Badle jane aur afresh jaree karne ke aadesh de deey hain
  • TET MANADORY HO SAKTA HAI MODEL SCHOOLS KE LEEYE


CJ kee Bench NE TET JARUREE KIYE JAANE PAR SEHMATI DEE :- >>>



For any error in reading the same, please brought to  our notice so that we will correct, if any

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Chief Justice's Court

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 249 of 2015

Appellant :- Jitendra Singh Rajpoot
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Sec. And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shailesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.2015/0895,H.N. Pandey,R.A. Akhtar

Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
An order of dismissal of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has given rise to the present special appeal. The appellant, who is the original petitioner, sought to challenge an advertisement issued on 17 March 2015 for appointment of trained graduate teachers in State Model Schools in Uttar Pradesh. The grievance of the appellant is that though NCTE has made it mandatory by a notification dated 23 August 2010 to hold a TET qualification, the State has not followed the requirement. The learned Single Judge merely recorded the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and of the Standing Counsel and dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:
"According to the learned counsel for the petitioner after notification of 23.8.2010 and thereafter Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which also prescribes TET as necessary qualification and , therefore the institutions within the State cannot appoint the teachers who do not have TET for teaching classes 1 to 5 and 6 to 8.
Learned Standing Counsel upon instruction submits that TET requirement is not applicable to the Model School as the Model School is affiliated to the CBSC and , therefore, the TET is not required.
In view of the aforesaid , the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed."
Ex facie, there has been no consideration by the learned Single Judge on the merits or tenability of the submission of the appellant. The appellant has relied upon the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others, [2013 (6) ADJ 310 (FB)], in support of the following propositions:
"1. The teacher eligibility test is an essential qualification that has to be possessed by every candidate who seeks appointment as a teacher of elementary education in Classes 1 to 5 as per the notification dated 23.8.2010 which notification is within the powers of the NCTE under Section 23(1) of the 2009 Act.
2. Clause 3(a) of the notification dated 23.8.2010 is an integral part of the notification and cannot be read in isolation so as to exempt such candidates who are described in the said clause to be possessed of qualifications from the teacher eligibility test.
3. We approve of the judgment of the division bench in Prabhakar Singh's case to the extent of laying down the interpretation of the commencement of recruitment process under Clause 5 of the notification dated 23.8.2010 but we disapprove and overrule the ratio of the said decision in relation to grant of exemption and relaxation from teacher eligibility test to the candidates referred to in Clause 3 (a) of the notification dated 23.8.2010, and consequently, hold that the teacher eligibility test is compulsory for all candidates referred to in Clause 1 and Clause 3 (a)."
In our view, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the submissions and could not have dismissed the writ petition merely on the basis of submissions of the learned Standing Counsel without considering the tenability of the rival contentions. For these reasons, we allow the special appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18 April 2015.�
Writ A� No.21167 of 2015 is, accordingly, restored to the file of the learned Single Judge for disposal afresh. It would be open to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to apply before the learned Single Judge for expeditious disposal of the writ petition.
The special appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.4.2015

VMA
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.)

(M.K. Gupta, J.)
*******************************

Here Delhi High Court said TET is mandatory for TGT Teaachers and candidates lost his/her job due to this fact -

 http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/2015/04/sarkari-naukri-tgt-teachrs-ke-liye-tet.html

No one can be appointed as a teacher in a school after the passing of the Right to Education Act, 2009 (in short „RTE Act,  2009), read  with the  notification  of  National  Council  for  Teacher Education dated 23.8.2010, unless such a person has CTET qualification.

Yahan Par Yachee Keh Raha Hai ki Games ke Rule Beech Mein nahin Badalte, RTE Act Aane Se Pehle ki Bhrtee Hai Ye Tab TET Ki Badhyate Nahin Thee.
 Rules of the games cannot be changed mid way because  the  advertisement  did  not  prescribe  the  requirement  of  CTET qualification, in my opinion, this argument if accepted ,
the same will amount to Court becoming a party to gross violation of the statutory provisions and
the statutory notifications as per the RTE Act , 2009






*************

see order -> http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/2015/04/uptet-sarkari-naukri-news-tgt-yachee-ne.html

It  was  also    stated  that  as  per  the Notification  dated  23.08.2010  issued  by  the  National  Council  for  Teacher Education (in short ‘NCTE’), it is mandatory for a candidate to qualify in the Teacher   Eligibility   Test   (in   short   ‘TET’)   which   is
conducted   by   the appropriate  Government  in  accordance  with  the  Guidelines  framed  in  that
regard  and  if  the  School  had  appointed  a  teacher,  who  did  not  qualify  the TET, then such an appointment was invalid. 
5.       When   the   petitioner   failed   to   receive   any   response   from   the respondent No.1/School, she filed a writ petition in this Court, registered as W.P.(C)  3025/2012  praying  inter  alia  that  the  respondent  No.1/School  be directed to appoint her to the post of TGT (Hindi).
******************







 UPTET  / टीईटी TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment  / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS  
UP-TET 201172825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825  Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,

CTETTEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET)NCTERTEUPTETHTETJTET / Jharkhand TETOTET / Odisha TET  ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility TestWest Bengal TET / WBTETMPTET / Madhya Pradesh TETASSAM TET / ATET
UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TETHPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
 
Read more...

Thursday, April 16, 2015

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI News - TGT Yachee ne Ko Ant Mein Pata Chala Ki TET Mandatory hone Kee Vajhe Se Nokri Nahin Milee -

UPTET SARKARI NAUKRI   News - TGT Yachee ne  Ko Ant Mein Pata Chala Ki TET Mandatory hone Kee Vajhe Se Nokri Nahin Milee  -

Ek Anya Yachee Ke Pass TET Certificate to Mojood Thee, Lekin Advt Mein TET Mahin Maangne se Usne Submit Nahin Kiyaa Thaa, Usko Court Ne Raahat Pradaan Kar Dee, Aur Nokri Dene Ke Leeye Nirdeshit Kar Deeyaa




IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER
W.P.(C) 5675/2013
Decided on: 12.11.2014
IN THE MATTER OF :
UMA KUMARI                                                                    ..... Petitioner
                                        Through: Mr. Y.P. Singh, Advocate with
                                        Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate  
                                        versus
THE CHAIRMAN MANAGING COMMITTEE, AIR FORCE SCHOOL &
ORS.                                                                                ..... Respondents
                              Through: Ms. Rekha Palli, Advocate with 
                                        Ms. Garima Sachdeva and Ms. Shruti Munjal, 
                                        Advocates for R-1/School.
                                        Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for R-2/CBSE.
                                        Mr. L.R. Khatana, Advocate for R-4.
CORAM 
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 
1.       The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia  that the  appointment  of  the respondent  No.4  be declared as bad  in law  and her appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi) be quashed. 
 2.      Briefly  stated,  the  facts  of  the  case  are  that the  IAF  Educational  and Cultural   Society   had   issued   an   advertisement   dated 31.01.2012   for recruitment  of  teaching  and  administrative  staff,  including  the  appointment of  teachers  to  the  post  of  TGT  (Hindi),  which  is  the  subject  matter  of  the present petition. The required qualification for the post of TGT (Hindi) was graduation  in  Hindi  (Hons.)  with  50%  marks  and  Bachelors  Degree  in Education.  The  applicants  were  expected  to  submit  their  forms  to  the respondents by 09.02.2012. The eligible candidates had to undergo a written test on 09.02.2012 and those, who would qualify in
the written test, were to participate in a personal interview.  
3.       It  is  the  petitioner’s  case  that  she  had  appeared  in  the  written examination  on  the  date  and  time  mentioned  in  the  advertisement  and  she had  successfully  cleared  the  said  examination.    Vide  intimation  dated 24.02.2012,   the   petitioner   was   called   to   appear   for
   an   interview   on 02.03.2012.  The petitioner had appeared before the  Selection Board on the
assigned day for an interview, whereafter she kept waiting for the results to be  declared  by  the  respondent  No.1/School.  However,   when  the  petitioner accessed the website of the respondent No.1/School,  she discovered that her name was not included as one of the successful candidates.  
4.       Aggrieved by the results declared by the respond ent No.1/School for  the  post  of  TGT  (Hindi),  the  petitioner  had  a  legal   notice  dated  9.4.2012  issued to the respondent No.1/School stating interalia that she possessed the desired   educational   qualifications   and   had   also   cle
ared   the   written examination  and  participated  in  the  interview  but  was  not  selected,  in
violation  of  the  rules  and  regulations.    It  was  also    stated  that  as  per  the Notification  dated  23.08.2010  issued  by  the  National  Council  for  Teacher Education (in short ‘NCTE’), it is mandatory for a candidate to qualify in the Teacher   Eligibility   Test   (in   short   ‘TET’)   which   is
conducted   by   the appropriate  Government  in  accordance  with  the  Guidelines  framed  in  that
regard  and  if  the  School  had  appointed  a  teacher,  who  did  not  qualify  the TET, then such an appointment was invalid. 
5.       When   the   petitioner   failed   to   receive   any   response   from   the respondent No.1/School, she filed a writ petition in this Court, registered as W.P.(C)  3025/2012  praying  inter  alia  that  the  respondent  No.1/School  be directed to appoint her to the post of TGT (Hindi).
6.       The  aforesaid  petition  was  disposed  of  vide  order  dated  18.05.2012, with  directions  to  the  respondent  No.1/School  that it  should  respond  to  the legal  notice  dated  09.04.2012,  by  passing  a  speaking  order  and  the  same should be communicated to the petitioner.  The afor
esaid order was passed at the  stage  of  admission  and  at  that  time,  the  School  was  not  represented before  the  court.    In  the  meantime,  the  respondent No.1/School  on  its  own
sent  a  reply  dated  19.5.2012  to  the  legal  notice  issued  by  the  petitioner, denying  the  allegations  leveled  against  it  and  stating  inter  alia  that  the petitioner was not found fit for selection to the post of TGT (Hindi) and was therefore,  not  selected.  It  was  also  stated that  th
e  Selection  Committee  had considered  the  candidature  of  all  the  candidates  objectively  and  thereafter, selected  the  eligible  candidates.  Aggrieved  by  the aforesaid  stand  taken  by
the respondent No.1/School, the petitioner has filed the present petition.  
7.       The  leitmotif  of  the  arguments  advanced  by  the  counsel  for  the petitioner to challenge the appointment of the respondent No.4 to the subject  post is that the NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010  prescribes that a school  cannot  appoint  teachers  to  the  post  of  Primary  Regu
lar  Teacher  (PRT)  or  TGT  (Class  I  to  VIII)  when  they  do  not  possess  the  TET  certificate.    He  submits that the petitioner herein possesses the TET certificate issued by the Haryana  Education  Board,  but the  respondent  No.4,  who  has  been selected to the subject post, does not possess the said qualification and therefore her appointment ought to be quashed. 
8.       Ms. Palli, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/School disputes the  submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and draws the attention of  the   Court   to   the   Circular   dated   06.03.2012   issued   by   the   respondent  No.2/CBSE,  wherein  it  is  stated  that  the  TET  conduc
ted  by  the  Central Government  would  apply  to  schools  under  the  Central   Government  and
Union  Territories  without  Legislature,  and  that  the   Managements  of  the schools  affiliated  to  the  Boards  such  as  CBSE,  ICSE   etc.  may  also  opt  for  the TET conducted by the Central Government. Learned counsel states that the  Notification  dated  23.08.2010  issued  by  the  NCT
E  was  directed  to  be implemented   by   the   CBSE   only   on   06.03.2012,   whereas
   the   subject  advertisement  was  issued  prior  thereto,  on  31.01.2012  and  the  selection
process  was  completed  by  02.03.2012,  which  was  also   prior  in  time  and
therefore,  possession  of  a  TET  certificate  was  not mandatory  for  the candidates at that point in time.  
9.       Supporting   the   aforesaid   submission,   learned   counsel   for   the respondent  No.4  adds  that  though  possession  of  a  TET  certificate  was  not mandatory  prior  to  issuance  of  the  Circular  dated  6.3.2012,  his  client  had passed  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Teacher  Eligibility  Test  held  in  November,  2011, as  stipulated  in  the  Notification  dated  23.8.2010  issued  by  the  NCTE.    In
support  of  the  said  submission,  learned  counsel  refers  to  page  215  of  the paper  book,  where he  has  filed    a  copy  of  the  Certificate dated  25.11.2011 issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate  Education, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, in favour of the respondent No.4, certifying inter alia that she had  passed  Uttar  Pradesh  Teacher  Eligibility  Test  held  in  November,  2011
(Upper Primary Level).  He further states that subsequently in the year 2013, the  respondent  No.4  had  passed  Central  Teacher  Eligibility  Test  (in  short ‘CTET’)  and  was  issued  a  Certificate  dated  02.09.2013,  that  is  placed  at page 216 of the paper book. 
10.     In  view  of  the  documents  placed  on  record  by  the  respondent  No.4 that  include  a  TET  certificate of  Upper  Primary  Level  issued  in  her  favour by the State of U.P. and a CTET certificate issued in her favour by the CBSE, it  is  manifestly  clear  that  she  satisfies  the  requi
rements  of  the  Notification dated  23.08.2010  issued  by  the  NCTE.    Moreover  as  is  apparent  from  a perusal of the advertisement enclosed with the writ  petition, at the time when
the   subject   advertisement   was   issued   by   the   respondent   No.1/School, inviting   applications   to   fill-up   the   posts   of   TGT   (Hindi),   it   was   not mandatory  for  the  candidates  to  possess  the  TET  certificate.    The  only qualifications  that  a  candidates  was  required  to  possess  was  graduation  in Hindi  (Hons.)  with  50%  marks  and  a  Bachelor’s  degree    in  Education  and the respondent no.4 fulfilled both the qualifications.  
11.     The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the copies of the certificates  filed  by  the  respondent  No.4  ought  to be  verified  by  the respondent No.1/School, is found to be rather incon
gruent in the light of the fact that on her part, the petitioner has chosen not to file any such certificate
to  substantiate  her  claim  that  she  possesses  a  TET certificate  purportedly issued  by  the  State  of  Haryana.    This  demand  is  all   the  more  discordant when  the  sole  argument  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  petitioner  to  assail  the appointment of the respondent No.4 is non-possessio
n of the TET certificate by  her.    Had  the  petitioner  wanted  to  file  the  said   certificate,  she  had  an opportunity to do so alongwith the writ petition and having  failed to do so at that  stage,  she  could  have  done  so  while  filing  the   rejoinder  to  the  counter affidavits   filed   by   the   respondent   no.1/School   and respondent   No.4.  However, for reasons best known to her, the petitio
ner elected not to do so. 
Therefore,  counsel  for  the  petitioner  cannot  insist  that  the  respondent  No.4 be directed to produce her original certificates for purposes of verification. 
12.     In view of the  aforesaid  facts and  circumstances, this  Court is of the opinion  that  the  appointment  of  the  respondent  No.4   to  the  post  of  TGT  (Hindi) does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness for interference in the  present  proceedings.  The  writ  petition  is  dismi
ssed  as  being  devoid  of merits while leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 
                                                                                          Sd/-
                                                                                       (HIMA KOHLI)
NOVEMBER 12, 2014                                                           JUDGE   







 UPTET  / टीईटी TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment  / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS  
UP-TET 201172825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825  Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / 4th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A

CTETTEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET)NCTERTEUPTETHTETJTET / Jharkhand TETOTET / Odisha TET  ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility TestWest Bengal TET / WBTETMPTET / Madhya Pradesh TETASSAM TET / ATET
UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TETHPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
 
Read more...

Thursday, April 12, 2012

See Case Details of AIIMS in HighCourt of Delhi about NOT Cancelling Exam (Merely on apprehensions)


See Case Details of AIIMS in HighCourt of Delhi about NOT Cancelling Exam (Merely on apprehensions) 
 हाईकोर्ट -  सिर्फ डर की वजह से की बड़े पैमाने पर गड़बड़ी हुई है  से / कुछ आरोपों के कारण पूरी परीक्षा रद करना ठीक नहीं


N  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
+  W.P.(C) 638/2012 and CM 1375/2012
Decided on: 10th February, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF DR. PRASHANT DASS AND ORS.     ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. O.P. Gulabani, Advocate
versus
UOI AND ORS.      ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asit Tiwari, Advocate for R-1/UOI. Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Advocate with Mr. Sumit
Babbar and Mr. Sahil Singh Chauhan, Advocates for  R-2/AIIMS.



CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI



HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by five petitioners praying inter alia for quashing of the All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Exxamination-2012 (in short ‘the ÁIPGMEE-2012), held simultaneously in 156 centres all 
over the country on 08.01.2012. The petitioners have also sought directions to respondent No.2/AIIMS to evolve a mechanism to prevent recurrence of such an incident of cheating in the entrance examination, which occurred in a Centre at Noida, as noted in the press clippings.
2. On  31.01.2012, counsel for respondent No.2/AIIMS had stated on instructions that a letter dated 24.01.2012 had been addressed by the Sub-Dean (Examination), AIIMS to the Director General, Directorate General of health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of

India, stating  inter alia that the incident of cheating in respect of the All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination-2012 held on 08.01.2012 was found to have occurred only at one examination centre situated at Noida and that the Centre Supervisor at  the said  centre had submitted a comprehensive report, which was in turn forwarded for investigation to the Crime Branch, Delhi Police.  The report of the investigation was awaited. In the report dated 10.01.2012 prepared by the Centre Supervisor at the Noida Examination Centre, a mention was made of three candidates from whose possession, some electronic gadgets were recovered by the police after investigation. Though  on the last date,  it was stated by the counsel for  respondent No.2/AIIMS that apart from the aforesaid stray incident that took place only in one centre at Noida and the examinations in all the remaining 155 examination centres were held peacefully and without any hindrance, respondent No.2/AIIMS was directed to file a brief affidavit in that regard.




3. An affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2/AIIMS on 08.02.2012, wherein it is stated that the entrance examination in all the centres all over the country had  commenced at 10 AM on 08.01.2012 and
that the examination went on smoothly at all centres except at  the  Noida centre situated at Vishwa Bharti Public School, Arun Vihar, Sector-28.  When the examination was in progress at the aforesaid centre, at about 10:20 AM, out of the two invigilators in the Noida centre, one invigilator had reported


that one candidate possessed a mobile phone, which was subsequently confiscated and handed over to the Centre Supervisor, who in turn informed the AIIMS examination control room about the incident.  At 11:30 AM on the same date, four officers from the Crime Branch, Delhi Police came to AIIMS with the scanned copy of the questions so as to verify  as to whether the questions in the scanned document matched with the original booklet of AIPGMEE-2012.  Upon scrutiny of the documents, it was observed that 2-3
pages of the question booklet appeared to have been scanned, which also contained the images of a ball pen that is supplied by AIIMS for use by the candidates appearing in the said examination.   Later on, it was revealed that the AIIMS representative, who was supervising the Noida Centre,  had deposited a seizure report of the mobile phone that had been seized from a candidate and the said phone was in turn handed over to the Crime branch officials, who  had  visited the centre later  on  and had apprehended the
candidate found to be cheating in the examination.   It is further averred in the affidavit that the Crime Branch, Delhi Police has interrogated the said candidate and two other candidates and some electronic gadgets were recovered    by the Crime Branch from all the three candidates. It is stated that the matter continues to remain under investigation of the Crime Branch, Delhi Police.




4. In view of the averments made in the aforesaid affidavit filed by respondent No.3/AIIMS, it is apparent that the incident of cheating is found to have occurred on 8.1.2012 only at one examination centre and that too in a centre which  was  situated at Noidawhere  a  mobile phone  is stated to have been recovered from one candidate and some electronic gadgets were recovered from two candidates.  Apart from the aforesaid incident, the AIPGMEE-2012  appears to have been conducted peacefully all over the remaining 155 examination centers.  A total number of 71,968 candidates are stated to have applied for  sitting in  the aforesaid examination and 69,069 candidates had actually appeared in the said examination.  It is also pertinent to note that the examination centre of none of the five petitioners herein was situated at Noida.  Rather,  upon inquiry, the Court is informed that  the centre from where petitioner No.1  had sat for taking his examination was located  at Rajouri Garden, that of petitioner No.2 was at JNU Centre, that of petitioner No.3 was at Vivek Vihar, that of petitioner No.4 was at Tagore Garden and that of petitioner No.5 was near Karkardooma Courts. 




5. Merely  an  apprehension expressed by the petitioners that they would suffer irreparable loss and injury in the event of a scam, which scam is  under  investigation by the Crime Branch,  Delhi Policecannot be considered as sufficient  ground for quashing  the AIPGMEE-2012 held on 08.01.2012 for 69,069 candidates all over the country. When the magnitude of the aforesaid incident is still unknown and the investigations are on, the present petition can only be termed as  one based on surmises and conjectures.  As a result, the present petition is  dismissed along with the pending application, as being premature and without any basis.



(HIMA  KOHLI)
JUDGE

FEBRUARY  10, 201

Info Source : http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/HK/judgement/18-02-2012/HK10022012CW6382012.pdf

*************************

कुछ आरोपों के कारण पूरी परीक्षा रद करना ठीक नहीं


(AIIMS  : Due to some minor allegations/charges, It is not good to cancel entire Medical Examination)

Read more...