Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)
Naiffa vs Central Board Of Secondary Education ... on 12 July, 1991 cites

Rajendra Prasad Mathur Etc vs Karnataka University & Anr on 1 May, 1986

In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Kamataka University . In that case, the appellants were admitted to certain private engineering colleges for the B.E. Degree course, although they were not eligible for admission. In that case, this Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the students whose admissions were subsequently cancelled and the order of cancellation was upheld by the High Court. At the same time, this Court took the view that the fault lay with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellants and that there was no reason why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the management of these engineering colleges. Accordingly, this Court allowed the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were granted admission. The same principle which weighed with this Court in the instant case. The appellant was not at fault and we do not see why he should suffer for the mistake committed by the Vice-Chancellor and the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 234 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

A.Sudha vs University Of Mysore & Anr on 6 October, 1987

8. At this stage, it is necessary for me to refer to a decision of the apex court of this country in A. Sudha v. University of Mysore . In that case, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider a case of a candidate who has been admitted to medical College and who has not secured 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in qualifying examination (P.U.C.) . That case was preferred by a student, seeking Special Leave petition against the Judgment of Karnataka High Court. The Supreme Court, in that case, upheld the judgment of the Karnataka High Court holding that the student, (i.e.) the appellant before the Supreme Court, was not eligible for admission in the first year M.B.B.S. Course. However, after holding so, the Supreme Court considered the question whether the student should be allowed to continue her studies in the M.B.B.S. Course. In that case, the Supreme Court took note of the fact that by virtue of the interim order of the High Court the appellant completed the First Year M.B.B.S. Course and by virtue of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court, the appellant appeared in the First Year M.B.B.S. examination.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 52 - M M Dutt - Full Document

A.P. Christians Medical Educational ... vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr on 24 April, 1986

In that case the Supreme Court considered its earlier judgments in A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh , and Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University . After considering those cases, the Supreme Court in the above mentioned case has held as follows : [at p.2309] The appellant was, the before, quite innocent and she was quite justified in relying upon the information supplied to her by none else than the principle of the Institute in the said letter in regard to the eligibility of the admission in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course. In the circumstances, we do not think that we shall be justified in penalising the appellant by not allowing her to continue her studies in the M.B.B.S. Course. Prime facie it was the fault of the principal of the Institute, but, in our view, the statement that was made by him in his said letter to the appellant as to the eligibility of the appellant for admission in the M.B.B.S. Course, was on a bona fide interpretation of the regulations framed by the mysore University for admission to M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 1985-86, which to some extent suffer from ambiguity. The regulations should have been more clear and specific.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 336 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Ashok Chand Singhvi vs University Of Jodhpur & Ors on 18 January, 1989

Apart from that, the Supreme Court against in Ashol Chand Singhvi v. Jodhpur University , had an occasion to consider the question where the application of a Diploma Holder in Engineering in Jodhpur University was kept in abeyance by the Dean, with regard to his admission, the Supreme Court has held as follows : [at P.826] Assuming that the appellant was admitted through mistake the appellant not being at fault, it is difficult to sustain the order withholding the admission of the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 105 - M M Dutt - Full Document
1