Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)
Madhuri Baburao Patharkar And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 14 February, 2025 cites

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Sandeep Choudhary on 28 April, 2022

In our considered view, the submission of the learned advocates for the petitioners referring to the decisions in the matter of Saurav Yadav, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra), and even referring to the decisions of the division benches of this Court in the matter of Charushila Tukaram Chaudhari and Sayali Nitin Inamke (supra), is not relevant for the determination of the issue before this Court in these matters which is as to if having become eligible by deriving the benefit of reservation and having scored less than 60% which is the benchmark provided for passing the TET/CTET, the candidates of the reserved category can be allowed to migrate to the unreserved category solely on the basis of their merit at 80/86 WP.8610.24.TET.odt + the selection examination - TAIT.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 11 - M R Shah - Full Document

Charushila Tukaram Chaudhari And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 8 August, 2019

In our considered view, the submission of the learned advocates for the petitioners referring to the decisions in the matter of Saurav Yadav, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra), and even referring to the decisions of the division benches of this Court in the matter of Charushila Tukaram Chaudhari and Sayali Nitin Inamke (supra), is not relevant for the determination of the issue before this Court in these matters which is as to if having become eligible by deriving the benefit of reservation and having scored less than 60% which is the benchmark provided for passing the TET/CTET, the candidates of the reserved category can be allowed to migrate to the unreserved category solely on the basis of their merit at 80/86 WP.8610.24.TET.odt + the selection examination - TAIT.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 5 - R M Borde - Full Document

Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992

In all these matters the issue was regarding the performance at the qualifying examination, wherein following the consistent line in the light of Indira Sawhney (supra), the reserved category candidates were allowed to migrate to the unreserved category purely based on their merits at the qualifying examination. Precisely for this reason even the decisions in 81/86 WP.8610.24.TET.odt + respect of relaxations obtained by a reserved category candidate in respect of fees and age limit being not considered as operating against the claim of the reserved category candidates for migration to the unreserved category, would not be applicable to the matters in hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 136 - Cited by 1429 - B P Reddy - Full Document

K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008

26. Once having understood the peculiarity of the matters in hand in the light of Pradeep Kumar (supra), the performance at the TET/CTET also being a relevant consideration in light of Section 23 of the RTE Act, going to the root of quality and standard of the education to be imparted and is not merely a screening or preliminary examination, the decisions in the matter of K. Manjusree Vs. State of A.P. and Ors.; AIR 2008 SC 1470, Jitendra Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.; 2010 (3) SCC 119, Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.; 2024 DGLS (SC) 759, Deependra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.; AIR 2024 SC 2147, would not be applicable to the fact situation of the matters in hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 638 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1