Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)
Dr. V. Ramalakshmi And 2 Ors. vs The Director Of Medical Education And 10 ... on 24 April, 1997 cites

Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board vs S. Ruban Peter And Others on 5 January, 1990

6. The petitioners have approached this Court by filing the above writ petitions on the ground that they have to be allowed to study further and so they have challenged the conditions in para 4 in Clause VI in the prospectus. Such a prayer cannot be construed as it relates to service itself. Merely because as a service candidates, the petitioners have applied for admission for higher studies, it cannot be said that the matters relate to service, so as to approach the Administrative Tribunal. The learned Special Government Pleader relied on he decision reported in Railway Recruitment Board v. Ruban Peter, 1990 (1) M.L.J. 373, referred to above, in which the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 8 - A S Anand - Full Document

Miss Mohini Jain vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 30 July, 1992

Considering the decision of the Apex Court, the Division Bench of this Court has held in W.P. No. 10756, 10755 etc., of 1992, dated 16.12.1992 held that the theory that once the petitioners having accepted the conditions in the prospectus cannot challenge the prospectus, is no longer good law, in view of the later decision of the apex court of the land reported in Miss Mohini Jain v. State of karnataka, .
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 330 - K Singh - Full Document
1