Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)
Aarju Aalam vs University Of Delhi & Ors on 14 October, 2015 cites

Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 April, 2008

"4. There is a background to the respondent University, in the counselling held on 13th July, 2011 not filling up all the OBC category seats and also not holding the second counselling scheduled for 20th July, 2011. The respondent University had been interpreting the judgments of the Apex Court in Ashoka Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1 and in P.V. Indiresan Vs. Union of India (2009) 7 SCC 300 as limiting the admission to OBC seats of only those OBC candidates who had secured marks within 10% below the marks of the last student admitted in the General Category.
Supreme Court of India Cites 205 - Cited by 929 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Apurva & Anr. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 7 September, 2010

The Supreme Court vide judgment dated 18th August, 2011 reported as 2011 (9) SCALE 33 concurred with the judgment of this Court in Apurva (supra) and held that the admission to 27% OBC seats in accordance with the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 could not be so restricted but it appears that the respondent University in anticipation of the said judgment, on 12th August, 2011 itself notified the counselling for the remaining OBC seats which were so available."
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 9 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Anr vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 10 August, 1999

D. The question/issue formulated by the Constitution Bench in Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra) also was relating to prescribing "different minimum qualifying marks" and not "cut-off marks". The Supreme Court in para 39 of the judgment explains that "eligibility" connotes the "minimum criteria for selection that may be laid down by the University Act or any Central statute". The Constitution Bench directly concerned with the issue and while holding that there cannot be a wide disparity and dilution of standards, approved only the difference in minimum qualifying marks and not cut-off marks. Infact in "cut-off" there can be no "minimum".
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 288 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Post Graduate Institute Ofmedical ... vs K.L. Narasimhan & Anr. Etc on 2 May, 1997

C. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of M.P. (1999) 7 SCC 120 while dealing with the reservation for Post Graduate courses in Medicine, overruled the earlier judgment in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research Vs. K.L. Narasimhan (1997) 6 SCC 283 and in para 115 (per Majmudar J., partly dissenting) reiterated:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

A.P.Public Service Commission vs Baloji Badhavath & Ors on 8 April, 2009

The senior counsel for the petitioners in this regard has referred to para 32 of A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Baloji Badhavath (2009) 5 SCC 1 to contend that the differential for the disadvantaged (Reserved category) has always been in the basic minimum criteria laid down and not in comparison to the last candidate admitted / appointed in the General category. Moreover, the Bench in Ashoka Kumar Thakur has not indicated that they were differing in any manner from the earlier judgment in Dr. Preeti Srivastava which as aforesaid is clearly with respect to minimum eligibility marks and not with respect to cut-off of the W.P.(C) No.7725/2015 Page 15 of 23 last candidate admitted in the General (Unreserved) category.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 241 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Government Of Andhra Pradesh vs P.B. Vijayakumar & Anr on 12 May, 1995

"A. Reservation by its very nature implies a separate quota which is reserved for a special category of persons - within that category admissions to the reserved seats may be made in the order of merit. The category for whose benefit reservation is W.P.(C) No.7725/2015 Page 9 of 23 provided is not required to compete with the open category. Their selection to reserved seats is independently, on their inter se merit and not as compared with the merit of candidates in the General (Unreserved) category. The very purpose of reservation is to protect the weak category against competition from the open category candidates. (See Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. P.B. Vijaykumar (1995) 4 SCC 520).
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 176 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992

B. The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 also held in para 836 that the very idea of reservation implies selection of a less meritorious person. It was held that this much cost has to be paid if the Constitutional promise of social justice is to be redeemed. It is the lack of opportunity which has led to social backwardness and reservation is one of the Constitutionally recognized methods of overcoming this type of backwardness.
Supreme Court of India Cites 136 - Cited by 1429 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1