Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.22 seconds)
Yudhanshu Angural vs Baba Farid University Of Health ... on 14 December, 2016 cites

Sachin Gaur vs Punjab University, Patiala And Others on 12 October, 1995

9 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 18-12-2016 23:01:50 ::: CWP No.21752 of 2016 -10- Full Bench that eligibility for admission to a Course has to be seen according to the prospectus issued before the Entrance Examination and that the admission has to be made on the basis of instructions given in the prospectus, having the force of law. Again Full Bench of this Court in Sachin Gaur v. Punjabi University, 1996 (1) RSJ 1 : 1996 (1) SCT 837 (P&H) (FB) took the view that there has to be a cut off date provided for admission and the same cannot be changed afterwards. These views expressed by earlier Full Benches have been followed in CWP No. 6756 of 1996 by the three of us constituting another Full Bench. Thus, it is settled law that the provisions contained in the information brochure for the Common Entrance Test 1997 have the force of law and have to be strictly complied with. No modification can be made by the Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 51 - S P Kurdukar - Full Document

Rajendra Prasad Mathur Etc vs Karnataka University & Anr on 1 May, 1986

The judgment in Rajendra Parsad Mathur's case (supra) would show that the students were not aware that the Ist year B.Sc. examinations of the Rajasthan and Udaipur universities were recognized as equivalent to the pre-university examinations of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore and, therefore, it was held that they should not suffer for the sins of the management of the engineering colleges.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 234 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

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

3 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 18-12-2016 23:01:50 ::: CWP No.21752 of 2016 -4- Government Medical College and had he has been informed at earlier point of time about that his admission was liable to be cancelled, he could have opted to take admission in the said institute. It is, thus, submitted that he has been put to great loss and resultantly his admission should be regularized. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments Sanatan Gauda vs. Berhampur University and others 1990 AIR (SC) 1075, Ashok Chand Singhvi vs. University of Jodhpur and others 1989 AIR (SC) 823, Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University and another 1986 AIR (SC) 1448, P. Ranjitha vs. University Grants Commission 1990(41) DLT 444, Manish Tanwar vs. Principal Rajdhani College 1996(63) DLT 906, Kanishka Aggarwal vs. University of Delhi and others 1992 AIR (Delhi) 105, Dental Council of India vs. Harpreet Kaur and others 1995(Sup1) SCC 304 and Javed Akhtar and another vs. Jamia Hamdard & another decided on 05.12.2006 of the Delhi High Court to argue that once the fees have been deposited he is entitled to continue with the course as it has prejudicially affect him and would lead to loss of a precious academic year.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

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

3 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 18-12-2016 23:01:50 ::: CWP No.21752 of 2016 -4- Government Medical College and had he has been informed at earlier point of time about that his admission was liable to be cancelled, he could have opted to take admission in the said institute. It is, thus, submitted that he has been put to great loss and resultantly his admission should be regularized. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments Sanatan Gauda vs. Berhampur University and others 1990 AIR (SC) 1075, Ashok Chand Singhvi vs. University of Jodhpur and others 1989 AIR (SC) 823, Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University and another 1986 AIR (SC) 1448, P. Ranjitha vs. University Grants Commission 1990(41) DLT 444, Manish Tanwar vs. Principal Rajdhani College 1996(63) DLT 906, Kanishka Aggarwal vs. University of Delhi and others 1992 AIR (Delhi) 105, Dental Council of India vs. Harpreet Kaur and others 1995(Sup1) SCC 304 and Javed Akhtar and another vs. Jamia Hamdard & another decided on 05.12.2006 of the Delhi High Court to argue that once the fees have been deposited he is entitled to continue with the course as it has prejudicially affect him and would lead to loss of a precious academic year.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 20 - A Kumar - Full Document

Rupinder Singh And Others vs The Punjab State Board Of Technical ... on 5 March, 1997

It is, thus, apparent that the petitioner had to be well aware with the terms of the prospectus, which have been held to be having force of law which is to be strictly followed. Reference can be made to 6 Full Bench Judgments of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota Vs. State of Punjab 1993(4) S.C.T. 328, Raj Singh Vs. Maharishi Dayanand University 1994(2) S.C.T. 766, Sachin Gaur Vs. Punjabi University 1996(1) S.C.T. 837 Rahul Prabhakar Vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar 1997(3) S.C.T. 526, Indu Gupta Vs. Director of Sports, Punjab 1999(4) S.C.T. 113 and Rupinder Singh and others Vs. The Punjab State Board of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Chandigarh and others 2001(2) S.C.T. 726.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 26 - S Kumar - Full Document

Priyadarshini Col.Of Computer Sc.& Anr vs Manish Kumar & Ors on 24 January, 2013

In Priyadarshini College of Computer Science v. Manish Kumar, (2013) 11 SCC 802, the Apex Court held that every candidate applying for a particular course is required to follow the advertisement including the eligibility criteria and after fulfilling the conditions in the application form and he cannot claim any benefit of his own wrong. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim any equitable right as such to continue with the studies on the basis of an ineligibility, which is the root of the matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 10 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Central Board Of Secondary Education vs Nikhil Gulati & Anr on 13 February, 1998

Once that is so and he was not eligible the observations of the Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Nikhil Gulati and another, 1998 (2) RSJ 153, while declining to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution can be noticed that ineligible students were being promoted under Court orders which were instances of For Subsequent orders see CM-14990-CWP-2016, CM-15291-CWP-2016, -- and 1 more.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 79 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next