Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 82 (1.58 seconds)
Documents citing Chithra Ghosh & Another vs Union Of India And Others on 25 April, 1969

Preeti Srivastava (Dr.)& Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 10 August, 1999

In this connection, observations in the Constitution bench judgment of this court in Chitra Ghosh & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), wherein Grover, J., spoke for the Constitution bench as to which we have made a detailed reference earlier are required to be kept in view. To recapitulate, it has been held that selection of eligible candidates for admission to medical courses can be made by classifying such candidates category-wise keeping in view the services from which they are drawn. The aforesaid decision of the Constitution bench was directly concerned with the admissions in medical colleges. It would squarely get attracted while deciding the present controversy. It is obvious that if for admission to a medical education course at gross-root level of MBBS, different rules for selecting candidates from different sources from which they are to be drawn are countenanced, then even at the stage of admission at postgraduate level, the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Constitution bench would squarely get attracted and would permit separate treatment for students drawn from different sources. It is of course true that in the said case, the Constitution bench was concerned with the nominations made by the Central Government on seats reserved for such nominees. However, that would not whittle down the decision of the Constitution bench to the effect that while imparting education in theory and practice in medical courses of study, the source from which candidates are drawn can be a relevant classificatory criterion and there can be different rules in the matter of selection of candidates drawn from different sources. It is axiomatic that reserved category candidates competing for being selected to the seats reserved for them in postgraduate medical courses as per the mandate of Article 15(4) of the Constitution have to compete inter se with their own colleagues from the same categories and not necessarily have to compete with general category candidates who form entirely a different class.
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 421 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Amalendu Kumar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 7 May, 1979

The observations of the Supreme Court in Ku. Chitra Ghosh's case (Supra) decided on a different set of circumstances, can be of no avail to the State. In the instant case, the State Government categorically and expressly took a decision that the unfilled reserved seats would be filled by candidates in the general category. This decision is incorporated in Annexure-2 and has not been cancelled or withdrawn. On the contrary it has been reinforced in Annexure 4 in paragraph 4. It is, therefore, idle to contend that the State Government cannot be compelled to release unfilled reserved seats to be filled by general category candidates.
Patna High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dr. Preeti Srivastava And Anr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. ... on 10 August, 1999

In this connection, observations in the Constitution bench judgment of this court in Chitra Ghosh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), wherein Grover, J., spoke for the Constitution bench as to which we have made a detailed reference earlier are required to be kept in view. To recapitulate, it has been held that selection of eligible candidates for admission to medical courses can be made by classifying such candidates category-wise keeping in view the services from which they are drawn. The aforesaid decision of the Constitution bench was directly concerned with the admissions in medical colleges. It would squarely get attracted while deciding the present controversy. It is obvious that if for admission to a medical education course at gross-root level of MBBS, different rules for selecting candidates from different sources from which they are to be drawn are countenanced, then even at the stage of admission at postgraduate level, the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Constitution bench would squarely get attracted and would permit separate treatment for students drawn from different sources. It is of course true that in the said case, the Constitution bench was concerned with the nominations made by the Central Government on seats reserved for such nominees. However, that would not whittle down the decision of the Constitution bench to the effect that while imparting education in theory and practice in medical courses of study, the source form which candidates are drawn can be a relevant classificatory criterion and there can be different rules in the matter of selection of candidates drawn from different sources. It is axiomatic that reserved category candidates competing for being selected to the seats reserved for them in postgraduate medical courses as per the mandate of Article 15(4) of the Constitution have to complete inter se with their own colleagues from the same categories and not necessarily have to complete with general category candidates who form entirely a different class. Once such classification is countenanced, as a necessary concomitant, separate provision for reserved category of candidates forming a separate class for which reservation of seats in postgraduate medical courses is permitted cannot be faulted and hence the dilution of minimum qualifying marks for reserved category of candidates cannot by itself be treated to be unauthorized or illegal form any view point. Otherwise the very purpose of reserving seats for such class of candidates at postgraduate level of medical education would be denuded on its real content and the purpose of reservation would fail. The seats reserved for such category of persons would go unfilled and will swell the admission of general category of candidates for whom these seats are not at all meant to be made available, once the scheme of reservation of seats under Article 15(4) is held applicable.
Allahabad High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dr. Narayan Sharma And Anr. Etc vs Dr. Pankaj Kr. Lehkar And Ors. Etc on 3 November, 1999

27. In the writ petition before the High Court, the petitioners had challenged reservation under the sub-rule expressly alleging that it is a device just to keep seats in the hands of the Executive to be allotted arbitrarily and whimsically. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State Government in the writ petition, no attempt was made to place relevant particulars before the Court in justification of the said reservation. Excepting a vague statement in paragraph 18 of the counter-affidavit that the State of Assam has the responsibility to provide assistance to the neighbouring States in the development of their medical manpower, there is nothing in the counter affidavit which could enable the Court to uphold the reservation. Having been utterly negligent before the High Court, the State Government has made an attempt in this Court by setting out certain particulars in the grounds of appeal. In ground (C) in the Special Leave petition, it is stated that 5 of the 7 States in the North Eastern region do not have medical colleges and only Assam has got 3 medical colleges apart from 1 in Manipur and, therefore, the provision for reservation is justified. It is unfortunate that the State Government has not chosen to help the Court by placing the relevant particulars in support of the reservation. It is, however clear from the available materials that the present case is similar to the one dealt with in Chitra Ghosh & Another v. Union of India & Ors., [1970] 1 SCR 413, wherein the Constitution Bench pointed out that provision for sons/daughters of Union Territories of Himachal Pradesh, Tripura, Manipur, Naga Hills, N.E.F.A. and Andaman was a valid classsification in view of the fact that the Union Territories referred to above were backward areas with the exception of Himachal Pradesh as they do not have medical college of their own. A perusal of the North Eastern Council Act, 1971 shows that the functions of the Council include making of recommendations with regard to any matter of common interest in the field of economic and social planning. There is absolutely no doubt that the candidates belonging to the 5 States of North Eastern region where there is no medical college form a separate class and a reasonable provision for them reserving a few seats in the medical courses is not violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution. Hence we uphold the reservation of 4 seats under N.E.C. quota.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 48 - M Srinivasan - Full Document

M. Narasimha Rao vs Secretary To The Government Medical And ... on 2 December, 1979

The learned Advocate General also drew our attention to Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India, where 45% of the seats that is, 18% reserved for various categories of applicants like sons and daughters of Central Government servants in Union territories, sons and daughters of Central Government servants posted in Indian Missions abroad , cultural scholars etc., were held to be valid though the total of the reservations amounted to 63%. It has however to be noted that in that case, it was found that the central Government had been acting in a very reasonable way and was making nominations only to nine seats out of 23 reserved seats and the rest was thrown open to the general pool. Hence, as a matter of practice reservation under these heads was only 9 out of 125, that is about 7%.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

S. Hari Ganesh (Minor) And Anr. vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. on 3 January, 1986

In yet another case, Chitra Ghosh v. Union, , the Supreme Court has held that the reservation of seats in the Maulana Azad Medical College for the sons and daughters of (i) residents of Union Territories, other than Delhi, (ii) Central Government Servants posted in Indian Missions abroad, etc., and reservation of seats for Jammu and Kashmir State scholars, were all justifiable, as the reservations had been made with reference to certain handicaps suffered by the concerned students. These pronouncements, therefore, clearly lend authority to our view that the reservation of twelve seats in the medical colleges for children born of inter-caste marriages with preference for children born to spouses of whom one is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, even though the heading of the category is 'children born on inter-caste marriages', it is perfectly in accordance with law, and does not offend the Constitutional provisions in any manner. Hence, even from the legal point of view, the criticism levelled by the petitioner about the formula prescribed for filling up the 12 reserved seats under category (iv) cannot be sustained.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - S Natarajan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next