Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 858 (4.47 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Etc. Etc vs Adhiyaman Educational & Research ... on 24 March, 1995

Jaya Gokul Educational Trust vs Commnr. & Secy. Government Higher ... on 11 April, 2000

There is no power vested in the State under any State Law to grant approval and even if it was so vested, it would have been void in view of Tamil Nadu case. This ground of repugnancy alone would be sufficient to quash the State Government's letter dated 16.8.1996 refusing to give their approval. Even on merits, the reasons given by the State Government in its counter are not tenable in law. The Director of Technical Education of the State was a member of the State Level Committee as per regulation 9(4) of the AICTE Regulations. The Secretary, Technical Education of the State of Kerala was also a member of that Committee. The AICTE's approval dated 30.4.95 showed that the approval had been given by the State Level Com-mittee of which they were obviously members. It is, therefore, not under-standable how the Director had given a contrary opinion to the State Government. Regulation 8(4) of AICTE only required calling for the "com-ments/recommendations" of the State Government and of the University. In case, there was difference between the State Government, University or the Regional Committee the Central Task Force was to make a final recommen-dation under Regulation 8(4). Here the letter of approval of the AICTE dated 30.4.95 showed that the Central Task Force had given its approval. The said approval was based also on the inspection by the Expert Committee of the AICTE. Hence the State Government in its counter, could not have relied upon any contrary opinion of the Director of Technical Education. If the State Government had any other valid objections, its only remedy was to place its objections before the AICTE Council under the AICTE Act or before the Committees, e.g. State Level Committee etc. The so called 'policy' of the State as mentioned in the counter affidavit filed in the High Court was not a ground for refusing approval.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 356 - Full Document

Dr.Preethiswary S vs Dr.G.Kamaleshwaran

57 This position leads to the incidental question to Schedule No.VII List I Entry 66 in the Union List and List No.III Entry 25 in the Concurrent List of the Constitution of India and the issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in 1995 [4] SCC 104 [State of Tamil Nadu and another Vs Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and others], wherein, the scope of those Entries in relation to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges [Regulation] Act, 1976 and the Madras University Act, 1923, vis-a-vis, the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 [AICTE] and in paragraph No.41 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summed up the legal position and test applicability. In paragraph No.44[ii] of the said judgment, it has been stated that to the extent that the State legislation is in conflict with the Central legislation though the former is purported to have been made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List but in effect encroaches upon legislation including subordinate legislation made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List or to give effect to Entry 66 of the Union List, it would be void and inoperative. Further, in paragraph No.44[iii], it has observed that if there is a conflict between two Legislations, unless the State Legislation is saved by the main part of Clause [2] of Article 254, the State Legislation being repugnant to the Central Legislation, the same would be inoperative. 58 It is the submission of Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in WA.No.498, 499 and 537 to 546/2017 that the Government Order, based on which, the Prospectus came to be formulated and issued, is having a force of law and the State Government under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, is entitled to prescribe guidelines for admission of students in Post Graduate Courses. In the considered opinion of the Court, the said submission lacks merit and substance for the reason that the Government Order containing administrative instructions, cannot be equated with the Statute and the field of medical education is already occupied in the form of the Central Legislation, viz., the Indian Medical Council of India, 1956, and various Regulations framed therein.
Madras High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - K K Sasidharan - Full Document

V.Lekha vs The Chairman on 19 August, 2021

(vi) However, when the situations/seats are available and the State authorities deny an applicant the same on the ground that the applicant is not qualified according to its standards or qualifications, as the case may be, although the applicant satisfies the standards or qualifications laid down by the Central law, they act unconstitutionally. So also when the State authorities derecognise or disaffiliate an institution for not satisfying the standards or requirement laid down by them, although it satisfied the norms and requirements laid down by the Central https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 124 WP.Nos.19534/2018 etc., batch authority, the State authorities act illegally.”
Madras High Court Cites 113 - Cited by 0 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document

V.Lekha vs The Chairman on 19 August, 2021

(vi) However, when the situations/seats are available and the State authorities deny an applicant the same on the ground that the applicant is not qualified according to its standards or qualifications, as the case may be, although the applicant satisfies the standards or qualifications laid down by the Central law, they act unconstitutionally. So also when the State authorities derecognise or disaffiliate an institution for not satisfying the standards or requirement laid down by them, although it satisfied the norms and requirements laid down by the Central authority, the State authorities act illegally.” http://www.judis.nic.in 127 WP.Nos.19534/2018 etc., batch
Madras High Court Cites 114 - Cited by 0 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document

Dr. Vilasini Devi Nair vs Goa Institute Of Management ... on 13 November, 2025

In our view, the said argument that the university has already prescribed the age of superannuation by invoking the power under Goa University Act and on it being inconsistent with the AICTE Regulation should not detain us as the issue is answered on more than one occasion and specifically in case of Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute (supra), when it is held that when there is any inconsistency in the applicability of norms, it necessarily must give Ashish 39/43 WP 755-24 GOA.doc way to the conditions stipulated by the Regulations/norms framed by the Apex body in exercise of its power to make Regulations for effecting governance of the technical institutions in the country.
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - B Dangre - Full Document

St.Joseph'S Hospital Trust vs The Kerala University Of Health ...

To that extent, certainly the decision in Adhiyaman's case stands clarified. But, we may notice that this is not a case where we can hold that the State is attempting to prescribe any higher standard for admission than the one fixed by the AICTE under the AICTE Act. Therefore, it cannot by any standard be held that in a matter where approval under the AICTE has been obtained as in these cases, it would be open to the State to thwart the consideration of the applications for affiliation by the University by proscribing the consideration of the affiliation without obtaining the No Objection WP(C).NOS.12323/12M & 13371/2012V 120 Certificate.
Kerala High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 23 - K Joseph - Full Document

Deepak Luther And Anr. vs The Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... on 30 April, 1998

However, when the situations/seats are available and the State authorities deny an applicant the same on the ground that the applicant is not qualified according to its standards or qualifications, as the case may be although the applicant satisfies the standards or qualifications laid down by the Central Law, they act unconstitutionally. So also when the State authorities de-recognise or disaffiliate an institution for not satisfying the standards or requirement laid down by them, although it satisfied the norms and requirements laid down by the Central Authority, the State authorities act illegally.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ms. Geeta Sharma vs All India Council For Technical ... on 26 September, 2002

"In view of the law laid d own in State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and Ors., etc., (supra and Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Kerala and Anr. (supra) it cannot be disputed that it is the AICTE which is entrusted with the power, particularly, to allocate and disburse grants, to evolve suitable performance appraisal systems incorporating norms and mechanisms for maintaining accountability of the technical institutions, laying down norms and standards for courses, curicula, staff pattern, staff qualifications, assessment and examinations, fixing norms and guidelines for charging tuition fee and other fees, granting approval for starting new technical institutions or introducing new courses or programmes, to lay down norms for granting autonomy to technical institutions, providing guidelines for admission of students, inspecting or causing to inspect colleges, for withholding or discontinuing of grants in respect of courses and programmes, etc. It is the Council which is required to regulate and ensure proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system. Again it is the Council which is required to provide guidelines for admission of students and has power to discontinue grant and to de-recognise the institution where norms and standard laid down by it and directions given by it from time to time are not followed. Again it is within the domain of the Council to grant approval to a new course or to recognise a new institute for imparting technical education. At this stage the University or the State Government can send their comments to the Council which are to be taken into consideration by ti while taking decision on the grant or non-grant of approval of such a course.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Bharathidasan University & Anr vs All India Council For Technical ... on 24 September, 2001

Equally, the consideration in Adhiyaman Engineering College case (supra), the question was as to the relative scope and extent of control of a professional engineering college by the State Government in the teeth of the AICTE Act and the powers exercisable by the AICTE under the provisions of the said Act, Rules and Regulations made thereunder. The decisions, the correctness of which are under our consideration in this case, have not kept into consideration before the nature and character of the issues raised in the two decisions of this Court noticed above before relying upon the observations contained therein in dealing with the rights of an university constituted under a State enactment, which, apart from the enactment constituting it, is governed by the provisions of the UGC Act, also made by the Parliament.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 209 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next