G.L. Reddy vs University Of Hyderabad, Rep., By Its ... on 19 October, 2001
34. The same question has been considered by the Apex Court in Osmania University Vs. Abdul Rayees Khan (9 supra) it has been observed as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 71 (0.83 seconds)Documents citing
Osmania University Represented By ... vs Abdul Rayees Khan & Anr on 25 October, 1996
Dr. T.Neeraja vs The Selection Committee For The Post Of ... on 7 January, 2021
22. The judgement in Osmania University rep. By its
Registrar, Hyderabad v. Abdul Rayees Khan and Ors. (3 supra)
does not consider the question of sub division of marks vis a vis award of
lumpsum marks, and may not be relevant to the present case.
Dr. Shashi Kant Thakur vs The Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central ... on 30 May, 2019
"9. In view of the respective contentions, the
question that arises for consideration is
whether the view taken by the High Court is
correct in law. It is not necessary to reiterate
what we have already stated with regard to the
merit procedure prescribed by the UGC and
the steps taken by the Osmania University in
nominating two external experts on the subject
to evaluate the respective papers presented by
G. Manohar Rao, the second respondent and
the first respondent for consideration of their
claim for merit promotion as Reader and the
subsequent selection. It would be self-evident
to show that the appellant had followed the
procedure in accordance with the guidelines
laid down by the UGC in referring the
respective claims of the first respondent and G.
Manohar Rao, the second respondent for
evaluating their papers. As seen, both Dr. P.
Koteswara Rao and Dr. T. S. Rama Rao are
Professors of outside University. Dr. P.
Koteswara Rao recommended the cases of G.
Manohar Rao as well as the first respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.6906 of 2018 dt.30-05-2019
11/16
for consideration for merit promotion as
Reader. Similarly, while Dr. T.S. Rama Rao
prima facie found the first respondent to be
qualified for consideration for promotion, he
did not make any specific recommendation as
regards G. Manohar Rao leaving it to the
Selection Committee to consider the research
papers submitted by G. Manohar Rao. It is not
in dispute that the said Dr. T.S. Rama Rao was
also a member of the Selection Committee as
an outside expert. As stated earlier, he and
Professor E. Gupteswar, an eminent Professor
from Andhra University Law College, were
outside Professors for selection of the
candidates. It is seen that the Committee
including two outside professors unanimously
recommended promotion of the G. Manohar
Rao as Reader. In other words, the outside
experts were unanimous in recommending
promotion of G. Manohar Rao as Reader. The
procedure for promotion from the post of
Lecturer to Reader as enjoined in the statute
and the guidelines laid down by the University
Grants Commission, was scrupulously
followed and was strictly complied complied
with. After interviewing the candidates, the
Committee unanimously found G. Manohar
Rao to be eligible for promotion as Reader. In
view of the above facts, the learned single
Judge was not right in concluding that there
was no objective evaluation by the two experts
on the subject, namely, Dr. K. Koteswara Rao
and Dr. T.S. Rama Rao. Equally, the learned
Judge was not right in concluding that the
Committee should have adopted the procedure
of awarding marks for selection of the
candidates. When a Lecturer is selected for
promotion as a Reader, respective academic
preferences and performance, teaching
experience and capacity to teach and other
teaching material relevant to the subject in that
behalf were considered by the Committee. It is
not necessary, like in selection of class II and
Class III officers, to award marks to each
Patna High Court CWJC No.6906 of 2018 dt.30-05-2019
12/16
candidate for their selection. What is required
to be done is dispassionate and objective
selection but not arbitrary or colourable
selection. When the University nominated
seven members including a High Court Judge
and selected the Readers of Professors on
objective test, there emerges no arbitrary
selection.
Dr. Kumar Bar Das vs Utkal University & Others on 3 December, 1998
Lokesh Rana vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 21 December, 2012
iv) Osmania University v. Abdul Rayees Khan & Another, (1997) 3 SCC 124;
Janardan Shriram vs State Of Up & Ors. (Air 2000 Sc 3299) After ... on 19 May, 2011
Referring to Osmania University Vs. Abdul Rayees Khan and Anr. (1997 (3) SCC 124), counsel pointed out that the Court should refrain from interfering in the academic selection made if it is done after following the prescribed procedure. The objectivity depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court had also indicated that as far as the superior posts were concerned, awarding of formal marks itself was not necessary.
Neelam And Ors vs R P S C Ajmer And Anr on 31 May, 2013
Learned Advocate General argued that the Supreme Court has in umpteen number of cases held that such disputes ought to be best left to be resolved by the academic bodies, rather than the Court interfering therewith. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgments in Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha and Ors. vs Chancellor, Allahabad - (1980) 3 SCC 418, Osmani University vs. Abdul Rayees Khan & Another - (1997) 3 SCC 124, and N. Lokanadham vs. Chairman, Telecom Commissioner & Another - (2008) 5 SCC 155.
Narendra Singh Mewada Ors vs R P S C Ajmer on 31 May, 2013
Learned Advocate General argued that the Supreme Court has in umpteen number of cases held that such disputes ought to be best left to be resolved by the academic bodies, rather than the Court interfering therewith. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgments in Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha and Ors. vs Chancellor, Allahabad - (1980) 3 SCC 418, Osmani University vs. Abdul Rayees Khan & Another - (1997) 3 SCC 124, and N. Lokanadham vs. Chairman, Telecom Commissioner & Another - (2008) 5 SCC 155.
Vimlesh Kumar Chaudhary Ors vs R P S C Ajmer on 31 May, 2013
Learned Advocate General argued that the Supreme Court has in umpteen number of cases held that such disputes ought to be best left to be resolved by the academic bodies, rather than the Court interfering therewith. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgments in Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha and Ors. vs Chancellor, Allahabad - (1980) 3 SCC 418, Osmani University vs. Abdul Rayees Khan & Another - (1997) 3 SCC 124, and N. Lokanadham vs. Chairman, Telecom Commissioner & Another - (2008) 5 SCC 155.
Kuldeep Singh Tanwar vs R P S C Ajmer on 31 May, 2013
Learned Advocate General argued that the Supreme Court has in umpteen number of cases held that such disputes ought to be best left to be resolved by the academic bodies, rather than the Court interfering therewith. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgments in Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha and Ors. vs Chancellor, Allahabad - (1980) 3 SCC 418, Osmani University vs. Abdul Rayees Khan & Another - (1997) 3 SCC 124, and N. Lokanadham vs. Chairman, Telecom Commissioner & Another - (2008) 5 SCC 155.