Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)
Neethu B. Sebastian vs Union Of India on 30 June, 2015 cites

N. Ramesh vs Sibi Madan Gabriel on 4 February, 2008

15. In exercise of the powers conferred upon the UGC, regulation- 1985 was issued. Clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 states that no student shall be eligible for admission to the first degree course through non formal/distant education unless he has successfully completed 12 years schooling through an examination conducted by the Board/university and in case there is no previous academic record he shall be eligible for admission if he has passed an entrance test conducted by the university provided that he is not below the age of 25 years on July 1 of the year of admission. It was argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that offering course of studies under open university system was in line with the system followed by IGNOU in terms whereof a student who had completed plus two(+2) or undergone the preparatory course and passed the written test become eligible to join the undergraduate programme of his or her choice. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the facts dealt with in Ramesh's case cited supra are different from the facts of this case. It was stated that in that case Ramesh had obtained post graduate degree (MA degree) without obtaining a graduate degree. Admittedly Ramesh was only a diploma holder. Though the facts may be different, the contention that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is totally inapplicable to the facts of this case cannot be countenanced. In the case cited supra, the question was whether the Distant Education Council has the requisite jurisdiction to grant post facto approval in terms of its letter dated 21.7.2008. In Paragraph 41 it was held by the Supreme Court:
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 22 - P K Misra - Full Document

Annamalai University Rep.By Registrar vs Secy. To Govt. Infn &Toursm Dept & Ors on 25 February, 2009

14. The learned counsel for the respondents has very much relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.Ramesh Vs. Sibi Madan Gabriel and others and Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department, 2009(4) SCC 590. The appellant therein; Ramesh who was holding a diploma in film technology subsequently obtained MA degree in open university system in an examination held by the Annamalai University. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court disposed of the Writ Appeals holding that Ramesh was not eligible to be considered for the post of Principal as the MA degree obtained by him through open university system, without there being a first bachelors degree, was not a valid one. Consequently the State Government was directed to take steps to fill up the post of Principal in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the same Ramesh as well as the University approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that as Distance Education Council (DEC) of IGNOU being an authority constituted under Statute 28 of the Open University Act, having granted post facto approval to the courses of studies of the university, the judgment rendered by the Madras High Court is liable to be set aside. It was argued that from the statement of objects and reasons of the Open University Act it is evident that parliament made a distinction between formal and non-formal education and UGC Act being concerned with formal education, IGNOU and particularly DEC had the requisite jurisdiction to lay down syllabus as also duration of such courses. It was argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the UGC Act comes within the purview of Entry 66 of list of I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and that UGC Act was enacted to make provision for the coordination and determination of standards in universities and for that purpose, to establish a UGC. Referring to Section 22 of that Act it was pointed out that right of conferring and granting of degree shall be exercised only by a university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 171 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of Kerala & Others vs Thulasibai & Others on 27 June, 2011

19. The decision of a Single Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala dated 4.11.2011 in W.P(C) No. 27554/2010 and of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in State of Kerala and others Vs. Thulasibai reported in 2011(3) KLC 65 cannot come to the rescue of the applicant since the facts dealt with therein are entirely different and also in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh's case cited supra.
Kerala High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 10 - P S Gopinathan - Full Document
1