Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
P. Rajaprabaharan (Minor) Rep. By ... vs The Secretary To Government Of Higher ... on 1 January, 2005 cites

Kumari Chitra Ghosh And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 April, 1969

In "Kumari Chitra Ghosh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. , the Supreme Court has held that the Government which bears the financial burden of running the medical college is entitled to lay down the criteria for eligibility and the Government cannot be denied the right to decide from what sources the admission will be made. The Supreme Court has further held that such power is essentially a question of policy and depends inter alia on an overall assessment and survey of the requirements as to the source and eligibility. Apart from communal reservation, in terms of Article 15(4) of The Constitution of India, the State identifies certain seats to be filled under special category. In addition to the above, 3% seats is also reserved for physically disabled persons. The eligibility norms, qualifications, age and the source for admission vest within the State and the State is empowered to prescribe such of those eligibility norms, minimum qualifications, age, etc., in exercise of power under Article 162 of The Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 103 - A N Grover - Full Document

Kunal Singh vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 February, 2003

11. Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in "Kunal Singh v. Union Of India and Anr. and contended that the petitioner is entitled for consideration as he has 48% disability, which is more than the disability prescribed under Section 2(t). That was a case where Section 47 of the Act was considered by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Section 47 of the Act relates to "non- discrimination in Government employment". In that case a Constable of Special Service Bureau suffered an injury in his left leg while he was on duty, which resulted in amputation of the leg. Based upon the report of a medical board, he was invalidated from service. While considering the right of such persons for suitable employment the Supreme Court held that the disability cannot be a ground to permanently incapacitate an employee as, under the provisions, he is entitled for consideration to alternate and suitable employment in the same establishment. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 344 - S V Patil - Full Document

R. Chitralekha & Anr vs State Of Mysore & Ors on 29 January, 1964

9. This leads us to the question as to the power of the Government to prescribe higher percentage of disability for entitlement to admission. The provision of Section 39 mandates a minimum of 3% seats for persons with disabilities. The power of the State Government to prescribe a machinery and also the criteria for admission of qualified students to medical and engineering colleges run by the Government and the Government aided colleges came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in "R. Chitralekha and Anr. v. State of Mysore and Ors. . In that case, even the power of the Government in prescribing the higher percentage of marks which a student should obtain for getting admission in the medical or engineering colleges over and above the minimum qualification prescribed by the University was approved and was held by the Supreme Court that such exercise of power does not contravene the minimum qualification prescribed by the University.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 268 - Full Document
1