Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 377 (1.30 seconds)
Documents citing University Grants Commission vs Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors on 17 September, 1996

Leena B. Dam vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 7 April, 2005

The requirement of Ph.D or M. Phil for appointment as University and College Lecturers, as may be, therefore, was dispensed with and the requirement of clearing an eligibility test to be conducted by the University Grants Commission or CSIR was introduced. The changes brought about by the 1991 Regulations having affected the aspirations of many candidates who were pursuing the Ph.D. or M. Phil course, the University Grants Commission by Notification dated 10.2.1993 granted exemption from appearing in the eligibility test, inter alia, to candidates who were awarded M. Phil degree up to 31.3.1991 and candidates who would be submitting their Ph.D. thesis up to 31.12.1993. By a subsequent Notification dated 21.6.1995 the period of exemption for both categories of candidates were made uniform by extending the exemption in respect of M. Phil degree holders up to 31.12.1993 also. The validity of the aforesaid exemption was considered and upheld by the Apex Court in the case of University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Choudhary (supra) by holding that the exemption from clearing the eligibility test had a reasonable basis in view of the time taken in submitting a Ph.D. thesis or obtaining an M. Phil degree by candidates who had undertaken either field of study prior to the date of issuance of the 1991 Regulations. While the matter was resting at that, the experience gained having indicated that even in case of Ph.D degrees, the standard had varied from one University to another and therefore, it was felt that even for Ph.D. degree holders there was a need for holding a common eligibility test with a uniform syllabus. Accordingly, the University Grants Commission in exercise of powers under Section 26(1)(e), (g) read with Section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 framed a new Regulation namely, University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers in universities and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 in supersession of the 1991 Regulations. Under the said Regulations of the year 2000, candidates were required to clear the NET and no exemption was contemplated either for Ph.D or M.Phil degree holders after 31.12.1993. After the framing of the aforesaid Regulations in the year 2000, various representations were received by the University Grants Commission and a large number of cases were also filed in different Courts with regard to the question of extension of the exemption of Ph.D. degree holders from clearing the NET. The matter was deliberated upon and by an amendment made in the year 2002, the Regulations of the 2000 were amended and for Ph.D. degree holders only, exemption was granted to those, who had submitted their thesis on or before 31.3.2002. The aforesaid retrospective action of the University Grants Commission by the amendment of the Regulations of the year 2000, therefore, continued the exemption from clearing the NET in so far as Ph.D degree holders are concerned up to 31.12.2002. Though the language of the amendment mentions the exempted category of candidates to be those, who had submitted their thesis on or before 31.12.2002, the natural consequence of the same would be also to cover all such candidates who may have obtained their Ph.D. degree on or before the said date apart from such other candidates who may have been admitted to the Ph.D. degree after 31.12.2002 on the basis of the their thesis submitted on or before the said date.
Gauhati High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R Gogoi - Full Document

Krishna Gopal Tiwary & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 July, 2016

In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent of saying that the choice of a cut-off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the same in the counter- affidavit filed by the Government (unless it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical), vide State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad, Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal (vide SCC para 5), Ramrao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Assn. (vide SCC para 31), University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary, etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has been given in the counter- affidavit of the Government or the executive authority as to why a particular cut-off date has been chosen, the court must still not declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut-off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 1 - D N Patel - Full Document

P.Suseela vs University Grants Commission on 6 December, 2010

40. In the instant case, as noticed above, in order to improve the quality of education, the first respondent namely., the Central Government set up a Review Committee under the Chairmanship of Bhalchandra Mungekar and other Experts to review the Scheme of National Eligibility Test. In its final report the Committee took a view that the NET/SLET test should be retained as a compulsory requirement for appointment of Lecturers at Under Graduate and Post Graduate levels irrespective of candidates possessing the degree of M.Phil or Ph.D. The report of the Mungekar Committee was considered by the UGC in its meeting held on 21.07.2008 and resolved that NET/SLET or Ph.D. shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment of Lecturers in universities, colleges and other institutions of higher learning. The government had also considered the report of the Mungekar Committee in the light of the recommendation of the UGC and issued a direction on 12.11.2008 under Section 20 of the UGC Act giving instructions to prepare appropriate regulations keeping in mind the national purpose of maintaining the standard of higher education prescribing that NET/SLET shall be compulsory for all persons to be appointed to teaching post of Lecturer or Assistant Professor in universities and other institutions imparting higher education. It was also suggested that only persons who posses the degree of Ph.D. after having been enrolled/admitted to a program notified by the UGC that too after it has fully satisfied itself on the basis of the expert opinion that such Ph.D. degree has been obtained in conformity with the procedure and standards prescribed by it only could be exempted. The government in exercise of the power under the Act also directed that the Commission shall not give any blanket or general exemption from NET/SLET to any university unless Ph.D. awarded by a university or an institution needs the same level of rigor in terms of standards and quality as laid down by the UGC for each discipline. In compliance with the above policy directive of the Central Government dated 12.11.2008 the UGC notified regulations by 3rd Amendment called 3rd Amendment Regulations, 2009, which was notified on 11.07.2009, which is impugned herein. It was categorically specified that qualifying NET/SLET would be the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in universities and colleges with exemption to be granted only to persons who have obtained Ph.D. degree in accordance with the standard and rigor prescribed under the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Colleges) Regulations, 2009.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 116 - Full Document

Sanjay Kumar Tiwari vs Jharkhand Academic Council And Ors on 10 May, 2016

In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent of saying   18 L.P.A. No.277 of 2015 that the choice of a cut­off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no   particular reason is given for the same in the counter­affidavit filed by the   Government  (unless it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical),   vide State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad, Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar   Jaiswal (vide SCC para 5), Ramrao v. All India Backward Class Bank   Employees   Welfare   Assn.   (vide   SCC   para   31),   University   Grants   Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary, etc. It follows, therefore, that even if   no reason has been given  in the counter­affidavit of the Government or   the   executive   authority   as   to   why   a   particular   cut­off   date   has   been   chosen,  the  court  must   still  not  declare  that  date  to  be  arbitrary  and   violative of Article 14 unless the said cut­off date leads to some blatantly   capricious or outrageous result.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 2 - D N Patel - Full Document

Animesh Kumar Patra vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 15 May, 2018

In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent of saying that the choice of a cut-off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the same in the counter-affidavit filed by the Government (unless it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical), vide State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad, Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal (vide SCC para 5), Ramrao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Assn. (vide SCC para 31), University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary, etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has been given in the counter-affidavit of the Government or the executive authority as to why a particular cut-off date has been chosen, the court must still not declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut-off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - A K Gupta - Full Document

The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Kokila Devi And Ors on 3 July, 2017

31),   University   Grants   Commission   v.   Sadhana   Chaudhary,   etc.   It   follows,   therefore,   that  even   if   no   reason   has   been   given  in   the   counter­affidavit of the Government or the executive authority as to   why a particular cut­off date has been chosen, the court must still not   declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the   said   cut­off   date   leads   to   some   blatantly   capricious   or   outrageous   result.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - D N Patel - Full Document

Prem Chand Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 21 June, 2018

In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent of saying that the choice of a cut-off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the same in the counter-affidavit filed by the Government (unless it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical), vide State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad, Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal (vide SCC para 5), Ramrao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Assn. (vide SCC para 31), University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary, etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has been given in the counter-affidavit of the Government or the executive authority as to why a particular cut-off date has been chosen, the court must still not declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut-off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 1 - A K Gupta - Full Document

Md.Ferdous Anjum vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 30 July, 2012

In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent   of saying that the choice of a cut­off date cannot be dubbed as   arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the same in   the   counter­affidavit   filed   by   the   Government   (unless   it   is   shown   to   be   totally   capricious   or   whimsical),   vide   State   of   Bihar   v.   Ramjee   Prasad,   Union   of   India   v.   Sudhir   Kumar   Jaiswal (vide SCC para 5), Ramrao v. All India Backward Class   Bank Employees Welfare Assn. (vide SCC para 31), University   Grants   Commission   v.   Sadhana   Chaudhary,   etc.   It   follows,   therefore, that even if no reason has been given in the counter­ affidavit   of   the  Government   or   the   executive   authority   as   to   why a particular cut­off date has been chosen, the court must   still not declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article   14   unless   the   said   cut­off   date   leads   to   some   blatantly   capricious or outrageous result.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - D N Patel - Full Document

Uranium Corporation Of India Limited vs Union Of India on 1 February, 2018

In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent of saying that the choice of a cut-off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the same in the counter-affidavit filed by the Government (unless it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical), vide State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad, Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal (vide SCC para 5), Ramrao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Assn. (vide SCC para 31), University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary, etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has been given in the counter-affidavit of the Government or the executive authority as to why a particular cut-off date has been chosen, the court must still not declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut-off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - D N Patel - Full Document

Maqbul Ansari vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 17 May, 2012

In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the   extent of saying that the choice of a cut­off date cannot be   dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for   the   same   in   the   counter­affidavit   filed   by   the   Government   (unless it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical), vide   State  of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad, Union of India v. Sudhir   Kumar   Jaiswal   (vide   SCC   para   5),   Ramrao   v.   All   India   Backward   Class   Bank   Employees   Welfare   Assn.   (vide   SCC   para   31),   University   Grants   Commission   v.   Sadhana   Chaudhary, etc. It follows, therefore, that  even if no reason   has been given in the counter­affidavit of the Government or   the executive  authority as to why a particular cut­off date   has been chosen, the court must still not declare that date to   be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut­off   date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next