Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 95 (1.13 seconds)
Documents citing Arvind Kumar Kankane vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 August, 2001

Cisly Grashious vs State Of Kerala on 24 November, 2020

16. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to a judgment of the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P and others [2001(8) SCC 355=2001 KHC 1650], we are of the considered opinion that the aspect considered therein was in regard to the waitlisted candidates and the consequences thereto. The same fact situation is not available here. But, at the same time, the Apex Court has clearly held therein that the rule for providing allotment of subject (speciality) in respect of post-graduate medical courses and college of study made on the basis of the option exercised by a candidate is final and no candidate can be permitted to change the subject or the College. Therefore, we do not think that the proposition of law laid down therein would extend any legal benefit to the appellant .
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - S P Chaly - Full Document

Cisly Grashious vs State Of Kerala on 23 November, 2020

3. The learned Single Judge took note of the relevant clause in Ext.P3 notification and found that, the mere fact that few seats fell vacant during the spot allotment process on account of the release of seats from other quotas could not be a ground to hold that the interdiction in Ext.P3 with regard to the transfer from one Law College to another Law College was unreasonable. While arriving at such a conclusion, the learned Single Judge took note of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Kankane vs. State of U.P. and others (2001 KHC 1650) to opine that even under circumstances where a seat becomes vacant after the allotments are complete, and is filled up by a candidate who is lower in rank in the merit list, the same can be treated only as a fortuitous circumstance and that cannot be a test for examining the reasonableness of the rule.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P V Asha - Full Document

Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. on 18 August, 2003

Similar arguments advanced before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Shafali Nandwani v. State of Haryana reported in (2002) 8 SCC 152 : (AIR 2002 SC 3382), in paras 7 and 8 the Hon'ble Court negatived the arguments relying on the earlier decision in the case of Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U. P. (AIR 2001 SC 2800) and the Court observed that :--
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 27 - L C Bhadoo - Full Document

Mrs. S. Manimegalai vs Medical Council Of India on 21 October, 2016

18. To add strength to such conclusion, the learned Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Aravind Kumar Kankane vs. State of UP and others (2001) 8 SCC 355) and (Arti Sapru and others vs. State of J & K and others) (1981) 2 SCC 454. Ultimately, in para No.9, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows in para No.9, it was held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - B Rajendran - Full Document

Atiharsh Mohan S/O Dr. K.M. Agarwal vs Banaras Hindu University Through Its ... on 20 December, 2007

In the case of Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases-335, the Division Bench of this Court after considering the scheme of admission and conditions imposed therein formulated by the State Government for Post Graduate Medical Courses and the decision of the Full Bench of Delhi High Court in Veena Gupta (Dr.) v. University of Delhi and of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Anil Jain v. Controller of Examinations held that any seat which is available and which has not been included in any of the three counsellings by mistake should be filled in, in order of merit from amongst the wait-listed candidates. Normally, when a seat is available, the same should be included in the initial counselling. If by mistake a seat is not included in the initial counselling then the effect is that no body opts for the same. If now the said seat is sought to be offered to all the candidates for counselling, the result would be that all the candidates who took part in the first counselling should be given a chance, in order of merit, to opt for the same seat. This will start a chain reaction and ultimately there will be one seat more, which would become available for the second counselling. There again a chain reaction will start leading to the third counselling. The effect of putting the seat back for counselling for all candidates, would, therefore, be to upset the entire counselling which had already taken place. Prima facie though it appears to be somewhat unfair, there is no alternative, apart from leaving the seat unfilled, but to offer the said seat to the wait-listed candidates. It was also noticed that once the academic course commences the same will have to be completed within a period of three years and if the counselling goes on continuously for a long period then it may not be possible, to fulfil that condition and thereby upset the course of study itself.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document

Dr. Pooja Mathur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2010

18. Now, we may advert to the challenge made to the validity of Rule 1.20(16) of 2010 Rules which provides that if a candidate has already been allotted a seat in the first round of counselling he would be prohibited for participating in the second round of counselling. The validity of similar Rule was under consideration before the Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Kankane vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2001 SC 2800. The Supreme Court in paragraph 4 of the report while upholding the validity of rule has held as follows:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 9 - A Aradhe - Full Document

Afrah Shaik vs State Of Kerala on 16 November, 2020

12. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the Apex Court has in the judgment in Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. and Others [(2001)8 SCC 355], upheld a Government Order, which provided that the allotment of subject (speciality) and college of study made on the basis of option exercised by a candidate would be final and the candidates cannot be permitted to change the subject or the College later. In para 5 of the judgment it was observed as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P V Asha - Full Document

Sreelakshmi Pradeep vs The Commissioner For Entrance ... on 19 November, 2020

In view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court it cannot be said that the restrictions imposed by the respondents for further allotment based on the higher options of the petitioner is illegal. It is seen that the said restriction is imposed in tune with the provisions contained in the agreement entered into between the Self Financing Colleges and the Government Orders issued based on that, according to which the 1st respondent had to complete the allotments to self financing Colleges before 16.11.2020 and there cannot be any re-allotment of students already allotted and admitted in such Colleges. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the apex court has in the judgment in Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. and Others:
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P V Asha - Full Document

Abhirami Prakash vs State Of Kerala on 19 November, 2020

5. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the apex court has in the judgment in Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. and Others: (2001)8 SCC 355, upheld a Government Order which provided that the allotment of subject (speciality) and college of study made on the basis of option exercised by a candidate would be final and the candidates cannot be permitted to change the subject or the College later. In paragraph 5 of the judgment, it was observed as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P V Asha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next