Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 116 (4.02 seconds)

Unknown vs Date Of Decision : 24.5.2 on 24 May, 2011

10. The High Court, in allowing the Writ Petitions purported to follow an earlier judgment of the Full Bench of the very High Court reported in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab 1993(3) P.L.R. 212 (supra). On carefully going through that judgment, we find that the Full Bench did not doubt the competency or authority of the Government to stipulate procedure for admission relating to courses in professional colleges, particularly in respect of reserved category of seats, but on the other hand, it specifically C.W.P. No.6333 of 2011 -24- deprecated the decision to do away with the requirement of minimum marks criteria in respect of seats reserved for sports category and that too by passing orders after the examinations were held under a scheme notified in the Prospectus. As a matter of fact the Full Bench, ultimately directed in that case, that selections for admissions be finalized in the light of the criteria specified in the Government orders already in force and the Prospectus, after ignoring the offending notification introducing a change at a later stage.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - M Grover - Full Document

Sri Guru Ram Das Charitable Hospital ... vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 25 September, 2003

Therefore, we are of the opinion that the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota's case (supra) is in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajiv Kapoor's case (supra). The aforesaid observations make it clear that the Prospectus would include the notifications issued by the Government. In the present case also, the Prospectus included notification dated 14.05.2003. The petitioners are claiming that the admissions have to be made on the basis of the aforesaid notification which is part of the Prospectus issued for the Academic Session 2003-2004.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Shailesh Rathee vs Pt B.D. Sharma Postgraduate Institute ... on 9 November, 2016

8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 19-11-2016 17:32:04 ::: Civil Writ Petition No.20468 of 2016 -9- **** "7. A Full Bench of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab, (1993) 4 SLR 673 : 1993(4) SCT 328 (P&H) (FB) had to consider the scope and binding force of the provisions contained in the prospectus. The Bench took the view that the prospectus issued for admission to a course, has the force of law and it was not open to alteration.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Yudhanshu Angural vs Baba Farid University Of Health ... on 14 December, 2016

"7. A Full Bench of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab, (1993) 4 SLR 673 : 1993(4) SCT 328 (P&H) (FB) had to consider the scope and binding force of the provisions contained in the prospectus. The Bench took the view that the prospectus issued for admission to a course, has the force of law and it was not open to alteration.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Gajinder Pal Singh Kaler vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 May, 2013

"A Full Bench of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab, (1993) 4 SLR 673: 1993(4) CWP No.11400 of 2013 10 SCT 328 (P&H) (FB) had to consider the scope and binding force of the provisions contained in the prospectus. The Bench took the view that the prospectus issued for admission to a course, has the force of law and it was not open to alteration.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - R S Malik - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next