Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Dr.Sohrab Arora And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 March, 2010

Navdeep Kaur Gill And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 29 March, 2011

The stand of the private medical colleges was that earlier fee was fixed after taking into account income from NRI seats but NRI seats could not be filled up, which called for revision thereof. The rate for NRI seats was $ 75000 for MBBS, $ 30000 for BDS and $ 15000 for BAMS/BHMS. This Court in CWP No.97 of 2007 Sohrab Arora v. State of Punjab found that admissions under NRI quota were being made from non NRIs in violation of directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and issued contempt notice to the State which led to issuance of corrigendum by the State dated 13.7.2007. As per the said corrigendum, the colleges were debarred from admitting non NRIs against NRI seats. Colleges protested on the ground that fee had been fixed by wrongly taking into account extra income from NRI seats.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Dr. Varun Nayyar & Others vs State Of Punjab & Others --Respondents on 20 December, 2013

In so far as respondents no.8 to 12 are concerned, since they have executed bonds of an amount up to Rs.15 lacs in pursuance to the order dated 25.10.2012, it would be open for the respondent-authorities to permit them to join against other unfilled posts after completion of their Post Graduate studies or against vacancies that arise on account of promotions/retirements that would occur during the intervening period. Such protection is being afforded to respondents no.8 to 12 by following the view taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 10.3.2010 while deciding CWP No.12839 of 2009 titled as Dr. Sohrab Arora and CWP No. 22953 of 2012 (O&M) -7- others Vs. State of Punjab and others and which were in the following terms:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - T S Dhindsa - Full Document

Chandan Jain & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 4 October, 2017

It is not disputed that the applications moved by the petitioners for extension in joining were allowed by the respondent-State and they were allowed to undergo their post graduation studies. The petitioners were issued `No Objection Certificate' to complete their studies with certain terms and conditions. Subsequently, without affording any opportunity of hearing, the `No Objection Certificate' was withdrawn. The candidates like the private respondents are in the waiting list and they cannot be allowed to work against the candidates like the petitioners as not only they have duly been selected and appointed but are more meritorious viz-a-viz private respondents. It is also relevant to mention here that once an appointment 6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2017 00:19:55 ::: CWP No.25544 of 2016 7 letter has been issued and the appointment has been made against a particular post, then the same cannot be offered to other candidates, who are lower in merit or even to the candidates, who are in the waiting list. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondent-State that the posts are still lying vacant and in case, the private respondents are appointed against said posts, they would be satisfied. Similar issue was there in Dr. Sohrab Arora's case (supra), wherein, the following order was passed :-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - D Chaudhary - Full Document

Dr.Chhaminderjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 5 September, 2011

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, however without expressing any views on the merits of the petitioner's claim, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the petitioner's aforementioned claim in the light of the decision of this Court in Dr.Sohrab Arora's case (supra), within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S Kant - Full Document

Dr. Sandip Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 15 September, 2011

(2). The petitioners seek quashing of order dated 23.08.2011 (Annexure P4) vide which their request for extension to join as PCMS-I Group 'A' Service Medical Officer General till they complete their MD Course, has been rejected without any reason. They thus seek a direction to the respondents to extend their joining period. (3). Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the present petition be disposed of in terms of the order dated 10.03.2010 passed in CWP No.12839 of 2009 (Dr. Sohrab Arora and Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.). (4). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of Dr. Sohrab Arora and others' case (supra).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S Kant - Full Document

Dr. Surinderpal Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 29 September, 2011

(2). The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 13.09.2011 (Annexure P3) vide which his request for extension to join as PCMS-I Group 'A' Service Medical Officer General till his completes his MD Course, has been rejected without any reason. The petitioner thus seeks a direction to the respondents to extend his joining period. (3). Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the present petition be disposed of in terms of the order dated 10.03.2010 passed in CWP No.12839 of 2009 (Dr. Sohrab Arora and Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.). (4). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of Dr. Sohrab Arora and others' case (supra).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S Kant - Full Document
1