Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.63 seconds)Union Of India & Ors vs Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers ... on 23 October, 2002
12. In the facts of the case in hand, when admittedly, the N.C.T.E. is competent body to have control over the standard of education in teachers training institute, any other rules/regulations framed by the State Government would be subject to the provisions of the Act, 1993 and Rules and Regulations made thereunder. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the power of the N. C.T.E. with regard to the coordination and determination of standards in teachers training institutions in the matter of Union of India and Ors. v. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers' College observed, as under:
Preeti Srivastava (Dr.)& Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 10 August, 1999
Both the Union as well as the States have the power to legislate on education including medical education, subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of List I which deals with laying down standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions as also coordination of such standards. A State has, therefore, the right to control education including medical education, so long as the field is not occupied by any Union legislation. The State cannot, while controlling education in the State, impinge on standards in institutions for higher education. Because this is exclusively within the purview of the Union Government. Therefore, while prescribing the criteria for admission to the institutions for higher education including higher medical education, the State cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by the Union of India under Entry 66 of List I. Secondly, while considering the cases on the subject it is also necessary to remember that from 1977, education, including inter alia, medical and university education, is now in the Concurrent List so that the Union can legislate on admission criteria also. If it does so; the State will not be able to legislate in this field, except as provided in Article 254.
State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr vs S.V. Bratheep (Minor) And Ors on 16 March, 2004
15. Applying the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, quoted above, to the facts of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the State Government is fully justified in amending the requisite qualification for admission to the B. Ed. courses, as the qualification prescribed in the State Rules, 2006, notified in Gazette dated 20th April, 2006 was not in accordance with the Regulations, 2006, framed by the N.C.T.E. which has full authority to regulate and monitor standard of education in teachers training institute. The State Government cannot make any prescription of the standard which is adverse to or lower than the standards fixed by the N.C.T.E. Even otherwise the candidates who had appeared in the examination and passed written examination had only the legitimate expectation for consideration of their claims according to the Rules, then in vogue.
State Of M.P vs Raghuveer Singh Yadav on 8 August, 1994
Article 246 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 254 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 32 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Secretary, A.P. Public Service ... vs B. Swapna And Ors on 16 March, 2005
11. The question for consideration in this batch of petitions is as to whether the State Government can alter/amend the qualification for admission to the B. Ed. Courses in order to being it in conformity with the qualification prescribed by the Regulations, 2006. It is well settled that once a process of selection starts the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed (Ref. Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna and Ors. .
Section 33 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
1