Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.38 seconds)
Dr.Sindhu S vs The Kerala University Of Fisheries And ... on 29 May, 2015 cites

Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput vs Gulbarga Univ.Tr.Regr.& Ors on 1 November, 2013

Referring to the Apex Court judgment in Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University [(2008) 9 SCC 284], relied on by the respondents, it was pointed out that the said judgment was W.P(c) No.5918/2015 & conn.cases 19 distinguished in the subsequent judgment in Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga University [(2014) 3 SCC 767].
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 96 - C K Prasad - Full Document

Rajbir Singh Dalal vs Chaudhari Devi Lal University & Anr on 6 August, 2008

Referring to the Apex Court judgment in Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University [(2008) 9 SCC 284], relied on by the respondents, it was pointed out that the said judgment was W.P(c) No.5918/2015 & conn.cases 19 distinguished in the subsequent judgment in Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga University [(2014) 3 SCC 767].
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 252 - M Katju - Full Document

University Grants Commission & Anr vs Neha Anil Bobde(Gadekar) on 19 September, 2013

62. It is seen from the pleadings that the nomenclature of degrees awarded differ from place to place. It is seen from Ext R11(e) that for NET examination, PG Degree holders in various related subjects are admitted. This court does not have the expertise to determine whether the subjects involved are relevant or not for the purpose of appointment to a particular post. Though it may appear that when a candidate with qualification in the particular subject is available, it is not necessary to go in search of others, going by the peculiar expressions occurring in the UGC Regulations 2010 as distinct from 2000 regulation, giving due consideration of the transformation of 'the' to 'a', following the apex court judgment University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde [(2013) 10 SCC 519] , this court will not be justified in interfering with such acdemic matters.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 172 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

J&K Housing Board & Anr vs Kanwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul & Ors on 4 November, 2011

52. Further in the judgment in J&K Housing Board & Anr. v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul & Ors. [(2011) 10 SCC 714] (paragraph 82) the Apex Court held that it is settled law that when any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, said thing must be done in the prescribed manner, while the Apex Court was considering the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act of Jammu and Kashmir. Where it is held that merely because the parties concerned were aware of the acquisition proceedings or served with individual notices does not make the position alter when the statute makes it very clear that all the procedures/modes have to be strictly complied with in the anner provided therein. Merely W.P(c) No.5918/2015 & conn.cases 60 because the land owners failed to submit their objections within 15 days after the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the State Act, the authorities cannot be permitted to claim that it need not be strictly resorted to. It was further in the case on hand the notification was published in two daily newspapers. But none of them was in a regional language, as prescribed under Section 4(1)(a) to (c), which was mandatory.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 93 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan And Ors. vs Lata Arun on 17 July, 2002

In case petitioners were aggrieved, they should have challenged the same then and there, without waiting for the interview. They have approached the Court only when they were dissatisfied with their performance in the interview. There was no prescription that the qualification should be in the concerned subject or in the relevant subject. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Lata Arun [AIR 2002 SC 2642] (paragraphs 12 and 14) it was contended that the Court is not supposed to interfere with academic matters and it should be left to the decision of the experts in academic field.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 206 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

A.Suma vs The Kerala Public Service Commission on 15 December, 2010

63. Now the contention raised is that there is no authority for the University to decide which are the relevant subjects in the absence of a provision for the same, relying on a series of decisions of this court including Suma's case (supra). But in this case there is no provision in the statute which says that the W.P(c) No.5918/2015 & conn.cases 76 qualification should be in the particular subject. As long as there is no deviation from the provisions in the Statute or UGC regulations it is not necessary to go in search of the source of power. In the decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel, there was a prescribed qualification for which other qualifications were declared equivalent. Of course it would have been fair and proper if the qualifications which were relevant were specified in the notification itself. But since none of the applicants had any complaint over the notification, it is not necessary to go into that question.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 17 - J Chelameswar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next