Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.32 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963
experts in the field, within the framework of Regulations
framed by the Medical Council of India under s. 33 of the
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and approved by the
Government of India on 5 thth June 1971. When selection is
made by the Commission aided and advised by experts
having technical experience and high academic
qualifications in the specialist field, probing
teaching/research experience in technical subjects, the
Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion
expressed by experts unless there are allegations of mala
fides against them. It would normally be prudent and safe
for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters
to experts who are more familiar with the problems they
face than the Courts generally can be. Undoubtedly, even
such a body if it were to contravene rules and regulations
binding upon it in making the selection and
recommending the selectees for appointment, the Court
in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to enforce rule of
law, may interfere in a writ petition under Article 226.
Even then the Court, while enforcing the rule of law,
should give due weight to the opinions expressed by the
experts and also show due regard to its recommendations
on which the State Government acted. If the
recommendations made by the body of experts keeping in
view the relevant rules and regulations manifest due
consideration of all the relevant factors, the Court should
be very slow to interfere with such recommendations (see,
The University of Mysore & Anr. v. C. D. Govinda Rao &
Anr.,(1).
Dr. J. P. Kulshreshtha And Ors vs Chancellor, Allahabad University, Raj ... on 30 April, 1980
53.The respondents have placed reliance upon another
judgment delivered in the case of (Dr.) J.P. Kulshrestha &
Ors. Vs. Allahabad University & Ors. [(1980) 3 SCC 418],
wherein it has been held that the Courts should not
interfere in educational matters. Paragraphs 11 and 17 of
the aforesaid judgment reads as under :-
Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth Etc on 17 July, 1984
52.The respondents have placed reliance upon
another judgment delivered in the case of
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar
Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27] and the paragraphs 29 of
the aforesaid judgment reads as under :-
Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 February, 1990
51.The respondents have placed reliance upon
another judgment delivered in the case of Hindi
Hitrakshak Samiti and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
[(1990) 2 SCC 352], wherein the writ petition filed
for holding examination in a particular language has
been dismissed and it has been held that for mode
of examination
ig no judicial intervention is
permissible. Paragraphs 5 and 9 of the aforesaid
judgment reads as under :-
U.P. Public Services Commission vs Subhash Chandra Dixit & Ors on 5 November, 2003
After examining various facets of the
method adopted by the U.P. Public Service Commission and
taking cognizance of the earlier judgment in U.P. Public
Service Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit1212, the three-
Sanchit Bansal & Anr vs Joint Admission Board & Ors on 11 October, 2011
39.The respondents have also placed reliance upon a
judgment delivered in the case of Sanchit Bansal Vs.
Joint Admission Board [(2012) 1 SCC 157] and heavy
reliance has been placed upon paragraphs 17 to 33,
::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 21:07:45 :::
18/48
PIL(L) 39/2015 with
connected matters.
State Of H.P.& Ors vs H.P.Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan ... on 20 April, 2011
In fact, in
the said decision, the State has not barred all the
institutions from continuing the courses already
notified under SCVT. The Cabinet decided to
discontinue only three courses. Inasmuch as the said
Cabinet decision dated 18.07.2009 not being the
subject matter or issue of the writ petition, the State
was not in a position to highlight all the details before
the Court. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the High
Court was not justified in interfering with the Cabinet
decision dated 18.07.2009 which was not the issue or
challenge in the writ petition. We are also unable to
accept the conclusion of the High Court that the
petitioner's association (respondent herein) is entitled
to run all the courses under the principle of 'legitimate
expectation'.
Basavaiah vs H.L. Ramesh & Ors on 29 July, 2010
another judgment delivered in the case of Basavaiah
(Dr.) Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors.[(2010) 8 SCC 372]
and the paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 of the aforesaid
judgment reads as under :-