Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)
Dr. B.S. Rathore & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 7 July, 2017 cites

Ashish Kumar Ranjan vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 December, 2016

In view of the order dated 18.01.2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.76 of 2015 and connected matters tilted Ashish Ranjan v. Union of India & Ors., 2016 11 SCC 225, normally we would be reluctant to extend the time. However, the present case has some peculiar facts of its own. The High Court has, on a totally erroneous basis, set aside a substantial portion of the counselling on 29th May, 2017 which would have resulted in fresh counselling and, therefore, some seats which could be filled up on 30th or 31st May, 2017 could not be filled up. That process which would have taken only 2 days; time would now require a minimum of 5 or 6 days' time because action will have to be taken afresh.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 22 - D K Singh - Full Document

State Of U.P And Ors vs Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan on 16 August, 2016

27. Contention of Mr. Abhimanyu Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioners that the act of the State in formulating two merit lists is in violation of the regulations so framed by the Medical Council of India and dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, is also misplaced. Issuance of a single merit list, according to us, has to be construed in the perspective that now in-service candidates per se do not constitute a distinct and a separate class, for the purpose of admission to State Quota seats, except them being eligible for grant of additional marks, as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dinesh Singh Chauhan (supra). Now the college(s) are to maintain a single merit list, which includes both direct category candidates as well as in-service category candidates.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 187 - Full Document

Priya Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors on 8 May, 2012

34. We are in respectful agreement with all of the submissions made by learned Advocate General and Mr. B.C. Negi, learned Senior Advocate, for in our considered view, the action so taken, bonafide in nature, actually advances the course of merit alone, which Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, emphasized in Priya Gupta (supra). There is neither any procedural irregularity nor any arbitrariness in the impugned ::: Downloaded on - 07/07/2017 23:59:21 :::HCHP ...21...
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 278 - S Kumar - Full Document

Ajay Modgil vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 31 May, 2017

r As a result of the petitioners and similarly situated candidates gaining eligibility to participate in counselling, due to lowering down of the percentile, the candidates who earlier were more meritorious than the petitioners and had obtained original qualifying percentile, as mentioned in the prospectus, now stood at a disadvantage, because such like in-service candidates, who earlier were not qualified to participate in the counselling, now were stealing march over them, by virtue of incentive, which they gained for having worked in difficult/ hard/backward/tribal areas. Some of such candidates, who were in earlier merit list, approached this Court by way of CWP No.1156 of 2017, titled as Ajay Modgil v. State of H.P. and others. The petition so filed was disposed of by this Court in the following terms:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1