Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.02 seconds)
WPSB/204/2021 on 4 August, 2023 cites

Major General I.P.S. Dewan vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 March, 1995

55. After reading the aforesaid judgment, this Court comes to the conclusion that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in that judgment is also not applicable to the present case. In the present case, we are not scrutinizing the relative merits of the petitioner and the selected candidate - respondent no. 2. Here, the issue, which this Court is examining is - whether the selected candidate, who did not have the qualification prescribed, could be considered as eligible, without determining the equivalence of subject "Linguistics" with the subject "English" by the Academic 33 Council. Therefore, this judgment also will not help the respondent University.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 31 - B P Reddy - Full Document

The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963

57. The sixth judgment which is relied upon by the respondent University is in the case of University of Mysore Vs. C. D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491, which, in fact, arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Quo Warranto. In paragraph 12 of this judgment, it is observed that whether the foreign degree is equivalent to a High Second Class Master's degree of an Indian University, is purely an academic matter and Courts would naturally hesitate to express a definite opinion, specially when the selection Board of experts considers a particular foreign university degree so equivalent. In fact, this judgment supports the petitioner's submission, that the determination of equivalence between subjects / courses, is a purely academic issue, which could only be determined by the Academic Council.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 754 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Madras Inst.Of Dev. Studies & Anr vs K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors on 20 August, 2015

50. Learned counsel for the respondent University has relied upon several judgments of the Supreme Court. He has first placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Institute of Development Studies and Another Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and other (2016) 1 SCC 454, and has referred paragraphs 12 to 21 of the said judgment. We have gone through this judgment. This case is on a different footing. The issue of eligibility was not in question. The issue, which was dealt by the Supreme Court in this case, was whether a person, who consciously takes part in the selection process, cannot thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection. This proposition is no more res integra. Here, the facts of the present case are totally different. By an advertisement, applications were 30 invited for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (English), Department of English. However, the Screening-cum- Scrutiny Committee short-listed respondent no. 2, who after selection, was recommended for appointment, though she was not having the qualification in English, and claimed to be eligible on the ground that her qualification could be considered as concerned / relevant / allied to the qualification in English. Short-listing a candidate, who was not having the advertised qualification, and then recommending such candidate for short- listing without taking matter to the Academic Council, and selecting her was totally unwarranted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 283 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document
1   2 Next