Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)
S. Madhusudhanan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 August, 2025 cites

P.Suseela vs University Grants Commission on 6 December, 2010

4. The name of the 5th Respondent appears at Sl.No.52, he belonging to the Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) community, while the name of the 6th Respondent is found at Sl.No.12, he belonging to the 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2025 03:06:50 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.3439 of 2017 Scheduled Caste–General Turn category. The Petitioner contends that the recruitment notification runs contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Suseela v. University Grants Commission, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 12 and 15 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has held as follows:— “12. It is clear that Section 26 enables the Commission to make regulations only if they are consistent with the UGC Act. This necessarily means that such regulations must conform to Section 20 of the Act and under Section 20 of the Act the Central Government is given the power to give directions on questions of policy relating to national purposes which shall guide the Commission in the discharge of its functions under the Act. It is clear, therefore, that both the directions of 12th November, 2008 and 30th March, 2010 are directions made pertaining to questions of policy relating to national purposes inasmuch as, being based on the Mungekar Committee Report, the Central Government felt that a common uniform nationwide test should be a minimum eligibility condition for recruitment for the appointment of Lecturer/Assistant Professors in Universities/ Colleges/Institutions. This is for the obvious reason that M. Phil. degrees or Ph.D. degrees are granted by different Universities/Institutions having differing standards of excellence. It is quite possible to conceive of M.Phil/ Ph.D. degrees being granted by several Universities which did not have stringent standards of excellence. Considering as a matter of policy that the appointment of Lecturers/ Assistant Professors in all institutions governed by the UGC Act (which are institutions all over the country), the need was felt to have in addition a national entrance test as a minimum eligibility condition being an additional qualification which has become necessary in view of wide disparities in the granting of M. Phil./ Ph.D. degrees by various Universities/ 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2025 03:06:50 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.3439 of 2017 Institutions. The object sought to be achieved by these directions is clear: that all Lecturers in Universities/Colleges/Institutions governed by the UGC Act should have a certain minimum standard of excellence before they are appointed as such. These directions are not only made in exercise of powers under Section 20 of the Act but are made to provide for coordination and determination of standards which lies at the very core of the UGC Act. It is clear, therefore, that any regulation made under Section 26 must conform to directions issued by the Central Government under Section 20 of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 116 - Full Document

The Secretary To Government vs Dr.M.Chandra Mohan on 31 July, 2023

8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st Respondent, the statements made in paragraphs 9 and 10 are as follows:— “9. I submit that very notification under which respondents 4 and 5 have been selected have been put challenge in various writ petitions culminated in to writ appeals and the validity of the same was upheld by this Hon’ble Court in various judgments, more particularly method of under recruitment was conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board in W.A.No. 1885 of 2022 (The Secretary to Government and others Vs. Dr.M.Chandra Mohan), dated 31.07.2023. When the validity method adopted by the Teachers Recruitment Board for conducting the selection process is upheld by this Hon’ble Court and the selection of respondents 5 and 6 are in consonance with the same, hence the selection of respondents 5 and 6 herein does not warrant any interference as the same was done in consonance with the 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2025 03:06:50 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.3439 of 2017 notification and the norms prevailing at the relevant point of time.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

Mandeep Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 16 March, 2023

10. However, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mandeep Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 2025 INSC 834. The relevant passages from paragraphs 59 and 60, which were specifically pressed into service, are extracted hereunder:— “59…. the State has miserably failed to justify the departure from the standard norms of the recruitment process. It has failed to give any valid reason for not adopting the UGC Regulations and avoiding the Public Service Commission in the recruitment in question. Moreover, as discussed earlier, the reason for this departure were narrow political and clearly arbitrary.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1