P&H HC: Offence u/s 295A won’t be Attracted if Act done Without Malicious Intent  ||  Ker. HC: No Liability on RTO to Pay Compensation if Vehicle Owner Fails to get it Insured  ||  Guj. HC: Elected Members Must Not Disrepute the Institution to Which they are Elected  ||  All. HC: Scheme of A&C Act Put no Limitation for Application of Doctrine of Severability to an Award  ||  Kar. HC: Apprehension of Not Getting a Fair Trial is Required to Seek Transfer of Case  ||  Ker. HC: Not Granting Divorce Despite Mutual Consent Amounts to Cruelty  ||  Tel. HC: Elders in the House Can’t Decide Custody of Child  ||  All. HC: Gravity of Misconduct and Past Conduct Relevant to be Considered by Disciplinary Authority  ||  P&H HC Issues Guidelines on Proclamation u/s 82 CrPC  ||  SC: Can File Complaint Under Repealed FERA Provisions During Sunset Period After Enforcement of FEMA    

Dharmender Grewal v. University Grants Commission - (High Court of Delhi) (14 Jul 2015)

Petitioner must show impinging of right, not demand creation anew, to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226



In claim that the Petitioner's error in shading the wrong code of the test booklet should have been corrected by the invigilator, the High Court found no such requirement in the rules of the examination. Noting the Petitioner's failure to establish a right to have his answer sheet re-evaluated, the Court opined that the grievance itself was attributable to the Petitioner and was not irreparable, owing to the recurring nature of the examination. The Court reiterated that unless the relief sought was established, no direction or order could be issued by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Relevant : Article 226 Constitution of India, 1950 Act State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chandra Dev and Mohan Prasad Singh Deo MANU/SC/0279/1963 State of Maharashtra Vs. Prabhu MANU/SC/0648/1994 State of Orissa Vs. Mamata Mohanty MANU/SC/0110/2011


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved