Skip to main content

Employment Law | State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Kalaimani, C.A. No. 6190 of 2019 08-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | L. Nageswara Rao & Hemant Gupta, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos.6190-6201 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14206-14217 of 2019) August 08, 2019

Recruitment Board - Manipulation of the OMR answer sheets - A bona fide decision taken by the Board to instill confidence in the public regarding the integrity of the selection process could not have been interfered with by the High Court. Sufficiency of the material on the basis of which a decision is taken by an authority is not within the purview of the High Court in exercising its power of judicial review.



In the instant case, the Board initially conducted an inquiry on its own regarding the allegations pertaining to manipulation of the OMR answer sheets. The Board found that a few people benefited due to the tampering of the OMR answer sheets. On a deeper scrutiny sufficient material was found against 196 persons who were beneficiaries of the fraud in the alteration of marks. The Board was convinced that there were chances of more people being involved in the manipulation of marks for which reason a decision was taken to cancel the entire examination. A bona fide decision taken by the Board to instill confidence in the public regarding the integrity of the selection process could not have been interfered with by the High Court. Sufficiency of the material on the basis of which a decision is taken by an authority is not within the purview of the High Court in exercising its power of judicial review. More material is being unearthed in the investigation and several people have been arrested. The investigation is in progress. [Para 13]
Petitioner's Advocate K. V. VIJAYAKUMAR

Labels:
Location: Tilak Marg, Supreme Court, Mandi House, New Delhi, Delhi 110201, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014] 
2 comments
Read more

Whether Plaint can be Rejected only against one of the Defendant(s) [SC JUDGMENT]

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 (d) – Rejection of Plaint - Relief of reject the plaint only against one of the defendant(s) – Held, Such a relief “cannot be entertained” in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC - the relief of rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC cannot be pursued only in respect of one of the defendant(s) - the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all, in exercise of power Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC - the plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as a whole but not in part.
Post a Comment
Read more

When Magistrate may Dispense with Personal Attendance of Accused [SC Judgment] | First Law

Criminal Procedure Code, 1972 - Ss. 205 & 317 - Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused - Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases - Discussed.
4 comments
Read more