Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing B. Ramesh vs University Of Health Sciences, ... on 6 December, 1989

Dr. B. Sudhakar vs Union Of India And Others on 1 July, 1994

44. For the above reasons, we arc in agreement with the view expressed by the pivision Bench of this. Court in Dr. Fazal Ghafoor v. Principal, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad (1988 (2) Andh LT 227) (supra), Dr. K. Ashok Kumar v. University of Health Sciences (1988 (2) Andh LT 463) (supra) and B. Ramesh v. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada (supra), as such they do not require reconsideration.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 19 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Devarakonda Rajesh Babu vs Nizam Institute Of Medical Sciences And ... on 21 October, 1997

We are not required to dialect this aspect of the matter in any further detail as in the case of B. Ramesh (supra) this Court has explained the legal position in this behalf. Following the order of area reservation a couple of seats may be found divided for different areas and thus leaving no scope for picking up any one of them for class reservation. In view of what is stated supra we hold as under :
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Dr. B. Vamsi Pavani And Ors. vs Government Of A.P. And Ors. on 9 July, 2004

(4) that for the purposes of reservation in appointments after adhering to the area reservation as aforementioned the fiction of carry forward can be applied, as envisaged above but such fiction of carry forward cannot be applied to admissions in the educational institutions and any class reservation if at all possible has to be confined to the number of seats available in a particular academic year of admissions. One seat or couple of seats, since area reservation has to be implemented before any class reservation is given effect to, cannot be subjected to either the so-called rule of dereservation or the rule of class reservation as they are to be made available first in accordance with the Presidential Order for each area of reservation. The rule in this behalf will be as one indicated in the judgment of this Court in P. Padmanabha Reddy's case (supra) or B. Ramesh's case (supra) as the case may be."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dr. V.V. Sai Naresh And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 July, 2005

16. The question whether the Presidential Order is violative of Article 371 D of the Constitution fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in B. Ramesh v. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, . The Bench negatived the contention that the Presidential Order is violative of Article 371-D. Article 371-D(1) of the Constitution reads as follows:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Dr.M. Vasurchana Reddy And Others vs State Of Telangana Rep., By Its ... on 9 April, 2018

It is with a view to enable prescription of residence in a part of the State, in matters of admissions in Universities or other educational institutions, that the Constitution, under Article 371- D, has made special provisions with respect to the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. (P. Vema Reddy51). The scheme of Article 371 -D is valid, intra vires the amending power of Parliament, and as not to militate against the basic structure of the Constitution. (Dr. C. Surekha v. Union of India ; Fazal Gafoor v. Union of India ; B. Ramesh v. University of Health Sciences ; and Devarakonda Rajesh Babu v. NIMS ; P. Vema Reddy51).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 81 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1