Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)
Lohade Ram Meena vs State Of Raj And Ors on 30 March, 2012 cites

Jaibir Singh Goyat vs Haryana Coop. Sugar Mills on 24 February, 2010

In the aforesaid background, no assistance is provided by the judgment in the case of Vikas Kumar (Supra) so as the other judgments in the case of Jaibir Singh (Supra) and Suresh Kumari (Supra) as none of the relevant facts were brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court. Therein, the set of rules for recruitment were also different because case in hand has to be decided in reference to the Rules of 1965 and 2008 wherein required education qualification for the post of Lab Technician has been given in specific terms. This Court cannot further ignore the fact that Lab Technician have to work in the hospital and Diagnostic centres, thus their working is of importance for treatment of a patient and in the present matters, there is nothing on record to show that the institution from where petitioners have taken diploma course was attached to hospital for providing practical training. Therefore, treating petitioners to be eligible for the post may be at the cost of patients. Thus, this Court cannot show misplace sympathy towards petitioners as otherwise shown by the UGC and DEC when a decision was taken for grant of ex-post facto approval.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 31 - L N Mittal - Full Document

Bharathidasan University & Anr vs All India Council For Technical ... on 24 September, 2001

So far as the judgments cited by learned counsel for petitioners are concerned, in the case of Bharathidasan University & Anr. (supra), the issue was quite different than involved in the present matters. Therein, a University does not require a prior approval of AICTE for starting department or unit as the University is having authority to conduct Technical Education Course on its choice. The AICTE was not found to be controlling or supervising authority over the University, thus the issue therein was in the light of the Act of 1956. The conflict was looked into in reference to different provisions under UGC Act and AICTE Act regarding its jurisdiction. The position of fact herein is different, inasmuch as, under the UGC Act, a deemed to be university can grant a degree, as notified in the Gazette by the Commission. The course obtained by the petitioners from JRN University was never notified in the Gazette to make it a degree as defined under Section 22(3) of the UGC Act of 1956. It has been admitted by learned counsel for UGC and to justify their action, the matter was sent to the DEC, though without showing authority of the DEC to recognize a course in para-medical side. It is coming out that till the year 2005, there was no prior approval of the course by the UGC or DEC, rather major deficiencies were found in the programme by distance mode, thus facts of this case are quite different than the judgments referred above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 209 - Full Document
1