cites: 29587948 doctypes: judgments

Mridul Dhar(Minor)&Anr vs Uoi&Ors on 12 January, 2005

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of Mridul Dhar (supra) the Apex Court has categorically held that the time schedule for completion of admission to the MBBS Course is of paramount importance and the same should be strictly complied with. Counsel further submits that the notification dated 31.8.2012 issued by respondent no.1 would seriously affect the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which entitles a person to fair treatment and non-discriminatory selection process in admission to higher education. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Clause nos.10 and 15 of the Prospectus in the General Information and Guidelines for Admission and Clause 2 under the heading „Declaration of Selection List‟, which read as under :

Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 464 - Full Document

Priya Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors on 8 May, 2012

22. The aim and purpose of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Priya Gupta (supra) was to ensure that there are no backdoor entries and there are no admissions by favourtism. It is in this light that various directions were issued to streamline the process of admission.

Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 278 - S Kumar - Full Document

Ms. Neelu Arora And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 January, 2003

Under the directions of this Court, second counseling should be the final counseling, as this Court has already held in the case of Ms.Neelu Arora and Anr. v. UOI and Ors.[(2003) 3 SCC 366] and third counseling is not contemplated or permitted under the entire process of selection/grant of admission to these professional courses.

Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 78 - Full Document

Varun Kumar Agarwal vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 March, 2011

In support of this submission counsel has relied upon a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this court in the Case Varun Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & ors., reported at 179 (2011) DLT 24, more particularly para 14, which reads as under:

Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 23 - D Misra - Full Document

Dr. M. Vennila vs Tamil Nadu Public on 12 June, 2006

In Dr.M. Vannila v. Tamil Nadu Public Services Commission, 2008 (3) CTC 69, a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras has opined thus:

Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 78 - Full Document

Punjab Engineering College Etc. Etc vs Sanjay Gulati And Ors on 20 April, 1983

19.The principle that the prospectus is binding on all persons concerned has been laid by the Supreme Court in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati, AIR 1983 SC 580.

Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 128 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

M/S.Nithin Textiles (P) Ltd vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory on 15 December, 2009

The same view is also taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Nithiyan P. and S.P. Prasanna v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994 WLR 624).

Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 19 - M Jaichandren - Full Document

Dr. M. Ashiq Nihmathullah vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu, ... on 8 September, 2005

The same principle is reiterated in the case of Dr.M. Ashiq Nihmathullah v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported in 2005 WLR 697. It is clear WP(C)No.5530-2012 Page 8 of 13 that the prospectus is a piece of information and it is binding on the candidates as well as on the State including the machinery appointed by it for identifying the candidates for selection and admission."

Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 36 - D Murugesan - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results