Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.68 seconds)Guru Nanak Dev University vs Parminder Kr. Bansal And Another And ... on 29 April, 1993
22. In my view the order dated 5-5-1993 was passed on the basis of the order dated 9-12-1992 which did not create any mandate in favour of the petitioner despite having secured 33.35% marks when not a single instance has been shown that [he respondents have admitted any candidate securing murks less than the petitioner. Therefore, il is abundantly clear that the order dated 5-5-1993 was obtained absolutely on the basis of wrong
information and wrong premise! Therefore, no benefit can be derived from the said order by the petitioner. That apart by reason of me observations made in the cases of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal (AIR 1993 SC 2412) (supra) and Krishna Priya Ganguly (AIR 1984 SC 186) (supra) and in view of the decisions cited above 1 do not find any reason to sustain the interim order dated 5-5-1993 which was obtained solely on wrong premise and information.
Ombir Singh And Others Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Another Etc.Etc on 30 July, 1992
Admittedly long time has lapsed. The petitioner has made the present application on 3-12-l"92 namely even after P.G.M.E.E. 1992 had taken place. Therefore, the petitioner had an opportunity of making up the deficiency by appear--ing in 1992 P.G.M.K, Examination which he had not done and even then there would beexcess load if the respondents are burdened with the case of the petitioner in view of the direction given in the case of Ombir Singh v. State of U.P. 1992 AIR SCW 3218 : (AIR 1993 SC 975).
Krishna Priya Ganguly Etc vs University Of Lucknow & Ors. Etc on 7 October, 1983
22. In my view the order dated 5-5-1993 was passed on the basis of the order dated 9-12-1992 which did not create any mandate in favour of the petitioner despite having secured 33.35% marks when not a single instance has been shown that [he respondents have admitted any candidate securing murks less than the petitioner. Therefore, il is abundantly clear that the order dated 5-5-1993 was obtained absolutely on the basis of wrong
information and wrong premise! Therefore, no benefit can be derived from the said order by the petitioner. That apart by reason of me observations made in the cases of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal (AIR 1993 SC 2412) (supra) and Krishna Priya Ganguly (AIR 1984 SC 186) (supra) and in view of the decisions cited above 1 do not find any reason to sustain the interim order dated 5-5-1993 which was obtained solely on wrong premise and information.
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors vs Dr. Anupam Gupta Etc on 13 February, 1992
In the case of State of U.P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta AIR 1992 SC 932 it has been laid down: (at p. 938 of AIR)
"Considering from this point of view, to maintain excellence the courses have to becommenced on schedule and to be completed within the schedule, so that the students would have full opportunity to study full course to meet their excellence and come at par excellence. Admission in the midstream would disturb the courses and also work as handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve excellence. Considering from this pragmatic point of view we are of the considered opinion that vacancies of the seals would not be taken as a ground to give admission and drrection by the High Court to admit the candidates into those vacant seals cannot be sustained."
1