Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 223 (1.71 seconds)
Documents citing Kalyani Mathivanan vs K V Keyaraj And Ors on 11 March, 2015

Mr Govinda Setty vs State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2023

This judgment follows the same line of cases including that of Kalyani Mathivanan (supra), Gambhirdan (supra) and State of West Bengal Vs. Anindya Sundar Das & Ors.34 However, it must be noted that all the cases referred to above are relatable to qualification of appointment of Vice-Chancellor and such qualification no doubt relates to recruitment, but still would fall outside the purview of Article 309 of the Constitution of India which deals with the conditions of Service, which would include the age of superannuation.
Karnataka High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - S S Yadav - Full Document

Kunja Bihari Panda And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 24 January, 2022

K.V. Jeyaraj (supra). The issue in that case was, whether the appointment of the Appellant as VC of the Madurai Kamaraj University was illegal as she did not satisfy the eligibility criteria stipulated by the UGC Regulations, 2010? The Court answered the question in the affirmative and accordingly appointment of the Appellant as VC was set aside.
Orissa High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - A K Mohapatra - Full Document

Parth Bipinchandra Patel & 4 vs Sardar Patel University & 3 on 20 April, 2017

20. With reference to aforesaid argument, it is to be noted that in the judgment in Kalyani Mathivanan vs. K.V.Jeyaraj and Others reported in (2015)6 Supreme Court Cases 363, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that UGC Regulations are directory so far as, Universities, Colleges and other higher educational institutions under the purview of the State Legislation are concerned. In view of the abovesaid view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not necessary to examine whether there is any repugnancy between UGC Regulations of 2010 and the Statutes framed by the University under the provisions of Sardar Patel University Act. When such regulations are held to be directory for the universities, colleges or higher educational institutions under the purview of the State Legislation, it is open for the 1st respondent University to frame Statutes, prescribe the required qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, having regard to local conditions and Page 29 of 33 HC-NIC Page 29 of 33 Created On Thu Apr 20 23:58:57 IST 2017 C/SCA/145/2017 CAV JUDGMENT availability of candidates possessing required qualifications, etc. It is also relevant to notice that Government also has issued resolution from time to time permitting the appointments of persons, who are not holding NET/SLET/Ph.D., on the ground that required number of candidates are not available to fill up the existing vacancies in various colleges. Same is evident from the resolution passed by the Government on 25th August, 2005 and further resolution passed on 5th March, 2013, which are placed on record during the course of hearing. In view of such resolutions passed by the Government and having regard to the Statute which existed at the relevant time of appointments of the petitioners, we are of the considered view that their appointments are valid, legal and are in conformity with the Statutes in force at the relevant time. When the amended Statutes have come into force only after assent by Hon'ble Governor on 22nd February 2017, the said Statute cannot be given retrospective effect to declare the appointments of the petitioners as illegal and void ab initio, on the ground that they have not acquired the required qualifications. In the event of not acquiring the required qualifications, they may not be entitled to earn future increments, as contemplated in the Statute, until they acquire the required qualifications but, at the same time, that will not make their appointments as illegal.
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - R S Reddy - Full Document

Dr. Amiya Rajan Barik vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 13 November, 2024

Although it was held that the State Legislation to the extent it was in conflict with the Central Legislation, including a subordinate legislation like the UGC Regulations, would be inoperative, but as explained in Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj (supra), unless the UGC Regulations are adopted by the State Government and implemented, the question of repugnancy would not arise.
Orissa High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - B P Satapathy - Full Document

Dr. Kritika Sharma Daughter Of Kaushal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 August, 2022

26. He further submitted that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred by the counsel for the petitioner in the matter of Kalyani Mathivanan (supra) is otherwise to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat (Writ Petition (Civil) No.1525 of 2019 dated 03.03.2022) as there is difference of opinion between the two.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - I Singh - Full Document

Dr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha And Anr vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 8 October, 2021

"10. The mere publishing or circulation of model regulations by the University Grants Commission would not ipso facto lead to a situation where all regulations issued by the University Grants Commission could be said to be binding on the universities concerned, except when duly adopted/promulgated, when such university happens to be a State University. Hence, the new/later regulation would become effective only when adopted/promulgated by the university concerned, when such university happens to be a State University. In the present case, the University has been operating under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. Support for this reasoning can be drawn from the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Kalyani Mathivanan vs. K V Jeyaraj, MANU/SC/0241/2015: (2015) 6 SCC 363, the relevant paragraphs being:--
Patna High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - A Amanullah - Full Document

Dr. Asad Hasan vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 8 October, 2021

"10. The mere publishing or circulation of model regulations by the University Grants Commission would not ipso facto lead to a situation where all regulations issued by the University Grants Commission could be said to be binding on the universities concerned, except when duly adopted/promulgated, when such university happens to be a State University. Hence, the new/later regulation would become effective only when adopted/promulgated by the university concerned, when such university happens to be a State University. In the present case, the University has been operating under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. Support for this reasoning can be drawn from the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Kalyani Mathivanan vs. K V Jeyaraj, MANU/SC/0241/2015: (2015) 6 SCC 363, the relevant paragraphs being:--
Patna High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - A Amanullah - Full Document

Dr. Upendra Kunwar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 8 October, 2021

"10. The mere publishing or circulation of model regulations by the University Grants Commission would not ipso facto lead to a situation where all regulations issued by the University Grants Commission could be said to be binding on the universities concerned, except when duly adopted/promulgated, when such university happens to be a State University. Hence, the new/later regulation would become effective only when adopted/promulgated by the university concerned, when such university happens to be a State University. In the present case, the University has been operating under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. Support for this reasoning can be drawn from the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Kalyani Mathivanan vs. K V Jeyaraj, MANU/SC/0241/2015: (2015) 6 SCC 363, the relevant paragraphs being:--
Patna High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - A Amanullah - Full Document

Dr. Rakesh Verma vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 8 October, 2021

"10. The mere publishing or circulation of model regulations by the University Grants Commission would not ipso facto lead to a situation where all regulations issued by the University Grants Commission could be said to be binding on the universities concerned, except when duly adopted/promulgated, when such university happens to be a State University. Hence, the new/later regulation would become effective only when adopted/promulgated by the university concerned, when such university happens to be a State University. In the present case, the University has been operating under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. Support for this reasoning can be drawn from the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Kalyani Mathivanan vs. K V Jeyaraj, MANU/SC/0241/2015: (2015) 6 SCC 363, the relevant paragraphs being:--
Patna High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - A Amanullah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next