Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)
Grandhi Sri Pavana Krishna Murthy Being ... vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its ... on 2 February, 1994 cites

Meenakshi Malik vs University Of Delhi & Ors on 1 May, 1989

In Meenakshi Malik v. University of Delhi, , the question that fell for consideration is regarding residence qualification. It was held that where a minor child accompanies the parents, who are in foreign service, and because of the compulsion, the parents had to leave the country along with the child, the child cannot be deprived of her residential status, and as such, relief was granted to her. That has got no bearing to this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 57 - R S Pathak - Full Document

K. Laxma Reddy vs Principal, I.T.I., Government College on 13 September, 1993

Yet another judgment pressed by Sri Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is K. Laxma Reddy v. Principal I.T.I., Government College, Bhongir, where my learned brother, Motilal B. Naik, J., has held that three years rule to pass out the examination should not be treated as mandatory and rigidly and that as the circumstances were beyond the control of the student as she was afflicted with polio, more time should have been granted and it was granted in that case. The same has got no application here as, in the instant case, it cannot be said that fixation of minimum and maximum age is only directory and not mandatory. As I read from the tenor of the concerned provision, the minimum and maximum ages fixed are mandatory in nature and it is specifically mentioned at the foot of the admission rules that no relaxation shall be granted with regard to the age restriction. If that be so, it has to be held that requirement of age, both minimum and maximum, is mandatory and not directory. It is needless to mention that while construing the provision, the intention underlying the provision and object has got to be considered. In professional courses like medicine and engineering, the authorities felt proper that for proper maturity and understanding of the course, minimum age requirement is necessary and that is based on intelligible differentia. There is a nexus for the object to be achieved and the classification of 17 years and below 17 years is based on rational aspect. Sri Prasad raised yet another contention that note 3 to admission rules framed by the University of Health Sciences has got no statutory force and that it is violative of G.O.Ms. No. 184 dated 20th August, 1993. I do not concur with this contention for the reason that in the said CO., there is no specific rule empowering a student to seek for any exemption. As there is no clash between the rules framed in the above CO., and the admission rules, the admission rule fixing minimum age limit is perfectly valid and justified. As such, I do not find any point in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1