Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing A. Franklin Joseph (Dr) vs State Of T.N on 14 February, 1994

Gouri Devi Institute Of Medical ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 August, 2019

(2019) SCC Online SC 68 • Dr.A. Franklin Joseph V. State of Tamil Nadu; (1994) 2 SCC 387 • Y. Srinivas Rao V. J. Veeraiah ; (1992) 3 SCC 63 • State of U.P.v. Singhara Singh; AIR 1964 SC 358 • Golcal Medical College v. Union of India; (2018) 1 SCC 108 • B.A. Linga Reddy v. Karnataka State Transport Authority & Ors.; (2015) 4 SCC 515 • Mekaster Trading Corporation v. Union of India;
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - A Malhotra - Full Document

Birla Institute Of Technology Mesra ... vs Yamini Shukla And Others on 1 November, 1995

Similarly in the case of Dr. A. Franklin Joseph v. State of T. N., (1994) 2 SCC 387 : (1994 AIR SCW 2891) the observation made in the case of Pradeep Jain (supra) was approved. Thus, these cases go to show that it is a specialised course and the authorities concerned must always endeavour to select the most suitable and meritorious persons. If these persons are not given admission and persons of lesser merit are given admission in technical institution or medical colleges then it will be against the national interest. In the present case the petitioner is more meritorious than the candidate who has now been inducted in her place from the waiting list.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - B Kumar - Full Document

Miss Quconio Ester Maureon De Melo And ... vs Director, Directorate Of Technical ... on 15 October, 1998

18. Learned Advocate Shri M. S. Sonak who appeared for 6 intervenors in Writ Petition No. 265/98 has adopted the arguments advanced by learned Advocate Shri S. Kantak and in addition has submitted before us that Clause 4.3 of the prospectus speaks of only two categories, namely general and reserved and reserved categories are specified in Clause 4.6; that Clause 4.5 prescribes minimum percentage of 60% in PCM for admission to Engineering College and the list of payment seats consisting of 87 published on 8-7-98 comprises of 10 candidates who do not fulfil the said minimum requirement; Clause 10 of the prospectus which deals with reservation of seats does not at all speak of payment seats falling within the reserved category and that even the table under Clause 12.3 shows that the payment seats are included in the general category except for N.R.I. seats and the reserved scats which are shown as separate category. According to the learned Advocate Shri Sonak, the various provisions of the prospectus had created genuine confusion as to whether pro forma V was required to be filled by the candidates who were willing to take up payment seats. This confusion, according to him, is fortified by the fact that only 2% of the total number of applicants that is to say 19 candidates out of 884 had filled up the said pro forma V and, whereas all the candidates who did not get free seats are willing to go for payment seats and pursue their career of their choice. Lastly, it was submitted that the Court should not interfere with the admissions already done even though they were made subject to the final result of these petitions, since it would result in ignoring the merit and less meritorious students would steal march over the meritorious students. Shri Sonak has placed reliance on Dattatraya Satwaji Narwane v. State of Maharashtra, and Dr. A. Franklin Joseph v. State of T. N., . These authorities are not directly on the point, but have laid down that admissions have to be made on the basis of merit.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1