Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.13 seconds)
Documents citing Thapar Institute Of Engineering ... vs Abhinav Taneja And Ors on 6 April, 1990

Pratibha Gupta And Anr. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 9 February, 1998

In Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala v. Abhinav Taneja (AIR 1990 SC 1222) (supra), their Lordships reversed the direction given by the High Court to admit the respondents who were admittedly, less meritorious than other candidates. However, their Lordships did not quash the admission granted to the respondents due to lapse of time. A careful reading of this decision shows that no general proposition of law has been laid down by the Apex Court on the issue of upholding the appointment illegally granted to/secured by a candidate. 40.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 2 - K S Kumaran - Full Document

Secretary, Raj. Public Service ... vs Om Dutt Sharma And Anr. on 10 October, 1990

In Thaper Institute of Engineering and Technology v. Abhinav Taneja (Supra), the High Court had allowed the writ petitions of the candidates and directed that the petitioners be given admission to B.E. Courses forthwith. In doing so, the High Court had ignored the affidavits of the respondents that there were more meritorious students than the petitioners who could not secure admission and who were waiting to be admitted to the Institution. The Supreme Court quashed this direction of the High Court and observed that the respondent students could get admission to the appellant institute only if their comparative merits ordained it and not otherwise. They could claim no merit over other meritorious students merely because they had approached the court for securing admission. According to the Supreme Court, the High Court travelled beyond its jurisdiction in giving direction for admission to the students who were less meritorious.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Sajitha G. vs Secretary To The Government Of India, ... on 1 December, 1993

10. The only other point as to whether the petitioner can ask for the issue of writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to admit her, in the M.B.B.S. Course under the Self Financing Foreign Students Scheme, is to he considered. As I culled out from the files, I do not think it is possible for this Court to issue a writ as prayed for. The Supreme Court in Thaper Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala v. Abhinav Taneja, , has held that if a writ is issued in such circumstances, the more meritorious students, however, not in a position to avail of seats due to lapse of time will be ignored, and as such a direction to give admission to a student like that of the petitioner herein is not warranted. As pointed out by Mr. K. R. Thiagarajan. learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, no seats are available for the academic year 1992-93 or 1993-54 and all the scats were filled up which arc allotted to the External Affairs Ministry. In such circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner can claim merit over the meritorious who arc not allotted seats merely on the ground she approached this court for securing a scat and also pointed out that one candidate who secured lesser marks than the petitioner had been admitted in the academic year 1992-93. I could see from the files that there arc more meritorious students than the petitioner waiting. As such, I do not think the writ jurisdiction of this court can be exercised which will result injustice to non-meritorious students who have not been admitted during that academic year 1992-93. It is true that merit alone should be considered as held by the Supreme Court in the abovementioncd decision. But even then, the petitioner cannot be claimed to be a meriotorious student. It is true that the petitioner has secured higher marks than the said Pushparani, whose name is mentioned in the affidavit. Hut at the same time, it is seen that there are students who got higher marks than the petitioner arc in the wailing list. As such, the choice of petitioner getting a seat has not been lost, just because a seat has been allotted to the said Pushparani. Even if that scat is allotted on merit, the petitioner will not in any way come nearer the marks obtained by other students. In view of. that, I have no hesitation to hold that this court cannot exercisc its extraordinary jurisdiction, on the facts and circumstances of this case. As such, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Brajendra Singh Chouhan vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 25 May, 1994

12. Reliance has again been placed on the decision given by the Supreme Court in the case of Thaper Institute of Engg. and Technology, Patiala v. Abhinav Thaneja, AIR 1990 SC 1222. This case is of no assistance to the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court was of the view that the High Court travelled beyond its jurisdiction and not only directed more students to be admitted than the institute could absorb but also students who were less meritorious were given admission. The Supreme Court took note of the fact that "no reason whatsoever was given by the High Court for exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction so peremptorily which resulted in injustice both to the appellant institute and also to students who stood higher in merit. However, the Supreme Court did not go to the extent of quashing the admission because more meritorious students could not avail of the admission due to lapse of time.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 82 - Full Document

State Of Assam And Ors. vs Rajeev Dey And Ors., Etc. Etc. on 28 June, 1995

A bare reading of the provisions of Sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 8 of Order 1 would show that where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, the Court may direct that one or more such persons may sue on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so interested and where such direction is given the Court shall give notice of the institution of the suit to all persons interested by a public advertisement and any person on whose behalf or for whose benefit a suit is instituted may apply to the Court to be made a party to such suit. There is, however, nothing in the aforesaid provisions in Order 1, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure which would show that if any such person on whose behalf or for whose benefit the suit is instituted does not apply to the Court to be a party under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8, in response to the notice, a judgment or decree can be passed ignoring his claim. On the contrary, the provision in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 of Order 1 Code of Civil Procedure would make it clear that no part of the claim in any such suit shall be abandoned or compromised under Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless the Court has given notice to all persons so interested. Although the aforesaid provision of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not directly applicable to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is not disputed by the parties that the principles contained therein may apply in certain cases even to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. This being the position, once the learned single Judge passed orders on 12-8-1994 directing publication of notice under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure to all interested candidates seeking admission to appear before the Court, the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Civil Rules became proceedings on behalf of and for the benefit of all candidates seeking admission to the MBBS Course in the Medical College of State of Assam for the session 1993-94 and the claims of such candidates could not possibly be abandoned or compromised merely because such candidates did not, pursuant to notice under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, apply to the Court to be made a party in the Civil Rules-or make their claim. Further, for the very same reasons, we are of the view that once orders were passed by the Court and notices were issued under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, converting the writ proceedings into proceedings on behalf of and for the benefit of all candidates interested in admission into the 1st year MBBS Course in the Medical College of Assam for the session 1993-94, relief in such writ proceedings can be granted not only in favour of the candidates who have actually approached the Court in the 27 Civil Rules but also in favour of all other candidates who on the basis of their merit were entitled to admission into the MBBS Course in the Medical College of Assam for the 1993-94 under the 1992 Rules. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Thaper Institute of Engineering and Technology (AIR 1990 SC 1222) (supra) relied on by Mr. Bhuyan was, therefore, not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Gauhati High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Kanishka Aggarwal vs University Of Delhi And Others on 11 March, 1991

Though Dewey points out that Holmes uses "logic" in a narrow "syllogistic" sense, and himself advocates "experimental logic" (P. 69), let us say, the formalist judge represents logic, while the situationalist judge represents good sense. With respect, it is the situationalist judge we find working in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University Thaper Institute of Engineering and Technology Patiala v. Abhinav Tanej a and Ashok Chand Singhvi v. Jodhpur University . For, in all these cases, the Supreme Court protected the interests of the students though found having been initially ineligible for admission. Who would not love to be in such august company?
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Javed Akhtar And Anr. vs Jamia Hamdard And Anr. on 5 December, 2006

Though Dewey points out that Holmes uses ``logic'` in a narrow ``sylogistic'` sense, and himself advocates ``experimental logic'` (P. 69), let us say, the formalist judge represents logic, while the situationalist judge represents good sense. With respect, it is the situationalist judge we find working in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University Thaper Institute of Engineering and Technology Patiala v. Abhinav Tanej a and Ashok Chand Singhvi v. Jodhpur University . For, in all these cases, the Supreme Court protected the interests of the students though found having been initially ineligible for admission. Who would not love to be in such august company.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 20 - A Kumar - Full Document

H.P.Public Service Commission vs Mukesh Thakur & Anr on 25 May, 2010

etc., AIR 1981 SC 487; Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh Vs. Sanjay Gulati & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 580; Thaper Institute of Engineering & 12 Technology, Patiala Vs. Abhinav Taneja & Ors.; (1990) 3 SCC 468; Sharwan Kumar & Ors Vs. Director General of Health Services & Ors, AIR 1992 SC 2202; and K.C. Sharma & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 3588). More so, Court has also power to mould the relief in a particular fact-situation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 842 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Bhushan Lal Sharma vs Jaswant Singh; (2007) 2 on 29 March, 2022

etc., AIR 1981 SC 487; Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh Vs. Sanjay Gulati & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 580; Thaper Institute of Engineering & Technology, Patiala Vs. Abhinav Taneja & Ors.; (1990) 3 SCC 468; Sharwan Kumar & Ors Vs. Director General of Health Services & Ors, AIR 1992 SC 2202; and K.C. Sharma & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 3588). More so, Court has also power to mould the relief in a particular fact-situation.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - M Rafiq - Full Document
1   2 Next