Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 166 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Ashok Chand Singhvi vs University Of Jodhpur & Ors on 18 January, 1989

Madhu Saini D/O B.S. Saini vs Rajasthan University Of Health ... on 3 August, 2022

110. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur & Ors. (supra), this Court finds that the Apex Court in that case came to the conclusion that it was the duty of the authority-University to see that its statutes, rules and resolutions were clear and unambiguous and did not mislead bonafide candidates. The Apex Court has held that it was the sins of management in admitting the students and as such, the appellant therein was not at fault and he was not to suffer on the basis of the mistake committed by the Vice-Chancellor and the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 32 - Cited by 23 - A K Gaur - Full Document

Madhumita Das vs University Of Calcutta And Ors. on 1 March, 2004

In the case of Ashoke Ckand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur (supra), both the appellant and the University were under the impression that the appellant did not obtain the required 60% mark for getting admission which was found to be wrong by the Supreme Court; according to the findings of the Court the appellant obtained 61.5%. Thus, the Supreme Court found that the appellant was eligible. The said decision cannot have any application to a case if it is found that the candidate had no required qualification.
Calcutta High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Aseri vs University Of Jodhpur And Ors. on 8 October, 1993

The case of Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur (1989) 1 SCC 399 : (AIR 1989 SC 823) is also of no avail to the petitioner as in that case candidate did not conceal anything from the University but he was granted admission after considering all the relevant facts. In this background it has been held that the appellant cannot be made to suffer by putting in abeyance or cancelling his admission after his joining the classes for the mistake committed by the authorities themselves in granting the admission on the basis of a resolution. But the facts of the present case are not of such a nature.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Madhu Saini D/O B.S. Saini vs Dental Council Of India on 3 August, 2022

110. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur & Ors. (supra), this Court finds that the Apex Court in that case came to the conclusion that it was the duty of the authority-University to see that its statutes, rules and resolutions were clear and unambiguous and did not mislead bonafide candidates. The Apex Court has held that it was the sins of management in admitting the students and as such, the appellant therein was not at fault and he was not to suffer on the basis of the mistake committed by the Vice-Chancellor and the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - A K Gaur - Full Document

Dr. Rabindra Nath Saren vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 November, 2011

17. In any event, in my view, the "Trainee Reserve" Rules would require a liberal construction so far requirement to fulfill the conditions of qualifying service is concerned as qualifying service is not the sole criteria for admission to the MS course. Individual candidates are required to sit in an entrance examination. Moreover, in the case of the petitioner he made full disclosure of his past service and the authorities at the initial stage had accepted that the 15 petitioner had rendered qualifying service to be eligible for admission in the said course. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Chand Singh Vs. Jodhpur University and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sujoy were relied upon by Mr. Roy in support of his case that once the petitioner made full disclosure of his qualification in the form of past experience in this case and the authorities had found him eligible, later on the authorities could not take a different view and disqualify him. The ratio of these two judgments however would not strictly apply in this case as the petitioner here was excluded at the initial stage only before formally being admitted to the course though it has been asserted on his behalf that fees were paid by him. The letter of his selection issued by the University made it clear that it was provisional. But as I am satisfied on merit that the petitioner had fulfilled the norms relating to qualifying service provided in the "Trainee Reserve" Rules, the petitioner can succeed even if the ratio of these two judgments do not apply in his case.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - A Bose - Full Document

Aishwarya V Jain vs Maharashtra State Technical Board ... on 31 March, 2016

13. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Ashok Chand Singhavi Vs. University of Jodhpur & Ors." 1 would also not assist the Petitioner. The facts in the said case are totally incomparable to the facts of the present case. In that case the application of the candidate was entertained when the Resolution of the University Syndicate was in vogue. The Vice Chancellor had directed admission of such candidates when the Resolution of the University-Syndicate was kept alive and in that situation the Supreme Court had observed that the candidate had disclosed all the material. It was held that the decision of the Vice Chancellor which though may be a mistake, should not cause prejudice to the candidate. Moreover, the candidate had secured more than 60% of 1 (1989)1 Supreme Court Cases 399 ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2016 00:01:46 ::: Rng 13 WPL.883.16.doc the marks in aggregate in Diploma examination and was not disqualified from the admission on that count. In the present Writ Petition admittedly the Petitioner was not qualified as per the Rules for an admission to the third year course. This decision therefore, is of no avail to the Petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next