Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.28 seconds)

Sri Ram. A (Minor) Rep. By His Father And ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By The ... on 1 September, 2005

7. The State, which is running most of the professional colleges, is entitled to restrict the admission and distribute the seats equally from among the eligible candidates. For the said purpose, the State is empowered to identify the source of admission. The normal rule is merit-based admission. However, the State, in exercise of its legislative power, has enacted the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993 (Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994) providing 69% reservation to various communities and leaving 31% to open category. The power of the State to earmark certain number of seats under special category came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in the decision in "M.Aarthi (Minor) rep. by her mother and natural guardian Mrs. M. Renuka and 2 Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai and 11 Ors. (2002 (4) CTC 449)". By a majority, the Full Bench held that "other than the reservation in Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994, what is permissible is only for physically handicapped, eminent sportsmen, children of Freedom Fighters and children of ex-servicemen being horizontal reservation and the executive power of the State no longer would be available to create additional special category seats or to add the quantum of reservation provided in the Act 45 of 1994". Even the reservation under the above categories, the right for reservation for physically handicapped viz., disabled persons could be traced to the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. So far as the reservation of seats to sportsmen, children/grandchildren of ex-servicemen and Freedom Fighters is concerned, it would be only a concession extended to them by the Government.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - D Murugesan - Full Document

H.U.Prasanth vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 11 July, 2007

In fact, a Larger Bench of this Court vide its judgment reported in 2002 Writ L.R.898 (M.Aarthi (minor) rep. by her mother and natural guardian Mrs. M.Renuka v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others) had an occasion to go into the special categories reserved in professional colleges and expressed that such a reservation are only horizontal and that while making reservations the State should bear in mind. In para 19, the Larger Bench observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - K Chandru - Full Document

Mr.M.Pounraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 October, 2012

23.The learned counsel for the petitioner also vehemently contended, that the persons have been given preference based on intercaste marriage, which is not sustainable in law in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in M.Aarthi (minor) represented by her mother and natural guardian Mrs.M.Renuka vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - V K Sharma - Full Document

Mr.M.Pounraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 October, 2012

23.The learned counsel for the petitioner also vehemently contended, that the persons have been given preference based on intercaste marriage, which is not sustainable in law in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in M.Aarthi (minor) represented by her mother and natural guardian Mrs.M.Renuka vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - V K Sharma - Full Document
1