Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)Dr. Pradeep Jain And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 June, 1984
6. Before we part with the case we would, however, like to indicate that the Scheme in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case is, in the opinion of this Court, in national-interest as also in the interest of the States. Competition at the national level is bound to add to and improve quality. Andhra Pradesh students on the whole are not at all backward and we are of the opinion that they would stand well on comparative basis. It is for the State and the Central Government, apart from the legal issues involved to decide whether in the general interest of the State, '. the scheme in the Presidential Order should either be so understood as to permit and assimilate the Pradeep Jain principle or should be explained, if necessary, by an appropriate amendment of the 'Presidential Order. We would, however, leave it to the respondents to take their decision in the matter. We would not like, therefore, to pronounce on the legal question finally in this case.
Reita Nirankari vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 26 July, 1984
The State in its affidavit has been taken the stand that if. is governed by the special provision contained in the Constitution of India under Article 371-D and, therefore, this Court had in its order dated 26th July, 1984 in Rita Nirankari's case (supra) excluded the application of the scheme in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra) to Andhra Pradesh. An additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh where it was pleaded that in the Presidential Order of 1974 available seats in relation to any course of study mean the number of seats provided in that course for admission at any time after excluding those reserved for candidates from outside the state. The intention, according to the contention, was to made provision for admission of 4 candidates sponsored by the Government of India and not a wholesale reservation of seats for candidates coming from outside the State. It was pointed out that in 1974, 8 seats were reserved for admission of nominees of the Government of India though this had been increased subsequently to 12. According to the State's contention if a good 4 number of seats are excluded from the purview of local candidates and if admission of more number of candidates is resorted to through the All India Entrance Test there is likely to be an agitation and discontentment from the local candidates since the number of available seats to local candidates would be reduced.
P. Sambamurthy & Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr on 20 December, 1986
In view of the terms of Clause (10) and the effect of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Sambamurthy's case (supra), the petitioner is not entitled to any relief on the first gronnd, namely, for a declaration that Article 371-D militates against the basic structure of the Constitution.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 371 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1