Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1460 (2.39 seconds)
Documents citing T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 31 October, 2002

Konika Poddar vs St Stephens College & Ors. on 12 September, 2022

65. The Kerala High Court had observed therein that the ratio of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (supra) could not be resorted to for buttressing the submission that a right had been conferred under Article 30(1) to the denominations spoken of in Article 26, and there could be no telescoping of the rights under Article 30(1), by reference to Article 26. Thus, any conferment of protection to a denomination within a minority religion, in exclusion of the community itself would be in contravention of the equal protection available to the other members of the minority religion.
Delhi High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 1 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Kriplani M vs The State By Its Secretary on 11 September, 2017

21. Therefore, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the Respondent-Department to proceed further in accordance with law and Court would leave free the petitioner-assessee, if he is aggrieved by any particular act or particular officer of Date of Order 11-09-2017 W.P.No.26717/2017 Kriplani. M. Vs. The State by its Secretary and others. 18/18 the Department against whom he has some evidence to make some allegations of malafides or corruption, he is also free to proceed further in accordance with the relevant laws before the various relevant authorities under the said enactments.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document

Dr.M.Hemalatha vs / on 2 May, 2017

(d)The legal bar created for appropriation of seats in Non-Governmental educational institutions by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.M.A.Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481 as well as P.A.Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 537 stands removed by inclusion of Clause 5 in Article 15 of Constitution by Ninety-Third Constitution Amendment Act, 2005 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and Others v. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1.
Madras High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document

Indore School Of Social Work Through ... vs Higher Education Department on 2 February, 2017

19. He submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others (supra), the University or the State Government can have no interference in the matter of appointment of a staff of an minority educational institution, nomination of Members of the Selection Committee and the process of Selection Committee by abrogating the right of the Institution and the Constitution of the Selection Committee by the University are complete illegal and arbitrary. They cannot compel the petitioner / Institution to cancel his appointment on the ground that the Selection Committee ought to have been constituted by the University. He further submitted that the remuneration of the newly appointed Principal is being paid out of the funds of the petitioner - Institution. The newly appointed Principal is on a non-grant post and the provisions of the University Grants Commission would not be applicable for the said post. As per College Code Statute No.28 for the post of Principal, a candidate should possess his academic qualifications prescribed for Professor plus two years experience of working as Professor in an institution of 10 WP No.4367/2016 higher learning affiliated to the University. The minimum qualifications prescribed for the post of Professor of Non- Government-College is a Doctor's Degree, or published work of equivalent high standard; and a Second Class Master's Degree in the concerned subject with at least 50% marks. The newly appointed incumbent (Dr. S.N. Sahay) fulfills the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed for appointment of a candidate to the post of Principal, as contained in College Code Statute No.28 and prayed that impugned orders 31.03.2016 (Annexure P/14), dated 13.05.2016 (Annexure P/16) and dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure P/17) be quashed and writ of mandamus be issued, directing the respondents not to interfere in the management of the petitioner - Institution and not to direct cancellation of appointment of the Principal (Dr. S.N. Sahay) made by the petitioner / Institution by resolution of the Governing Body dated 12.03.2016 (Annexure P/12).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P K Jaiswal - Full Document

N.Naga Harihara Sudan vs The Secretary To Govt.(Health) on 18 July, 2019

155. While determining the fee structure, safeguard has to be provided for so that professional institutions do not become auction houses for the purpose of selling seats. Having regard to the statement of law laid down in paragraph 56 of the judgment, it would have been better, if sufficient guidelines could have been provided for. Such a task which is a difficult one has to be left to the Committee. While fixing the fee structure the Committee shall also take into consideration, inter alia, the salary or remuneration paid to the members of the faculty and other staff, the investment made by them, the infrastructure provided and plan for future development of the institution as also expansion of the educational institution. Future planning or improvement of facilities may be provided for. An institution may want to invest in an expensive device (for medical colleges) or a powerful computer (for technical college). These factors are also required to be taken care of. The State must evolve a detailed procedure for constitution and smooth functioning of the Committee.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - C Saravanan - Full Document

2 vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 June, 2014

In T.M.A. Pai case questions as to the rights of minority institutions to manage their own affairs were taken up, one of the significant questions being the right to determine and levy fee. Question 5(c) and its answer are reproduced below: (SCC pp. 589-90, para 161) ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2014 23:50:27 ::: WP No.1949/2012 36 "161. ... Q. 5. (c) Whether the statutory provisions which regulate the facets of administration like control over educational agencies, control over governing bodies, conditions of affiliation including recognition/withdrawal thereof, and appointment of staff, employees, teachers and Principals including their service conditions and regulation of fees, etc. would interfere with the right of administration of minorities?
Bombay High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Committee Of Management, Anjuman ... vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary, ... on 5 April, 2007

In T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra), it has been settled by the Apex Court that that Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India stands for equality and rule of law and are part of basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated. It was further held that Article 21 is the heart of the Constitution of India. Articles 15, 21 read with Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India if allowed to be abrogated would completely change basic structure of the Constitution of India.
Allahabad High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 1 - S N Srivastava - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next