Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)
Dr. Manish Patnecha vs The Chairperson, Counselling ... on 19 November, 2009 cites

Dr. B. Kaladhar And Ors. vs Government Of A.P., Health, Medical And ... on 21 November, 2005

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on (2002) 8 SCC 152, Shafali Nandwani v. State of Haryana and others; (2005) 13 WP (C) 9763 of 2009 Page 17 of 30 Supreme Court Cases 677, M.A. Salam (II) v. Principal Secretary, Govt. Of A.P. and others, (1996) 3 SCC 253, Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and others, (1996) 6 SCC 36, State of Bihar and Others v. M. Neethi Chandra and Others; 2006 (12) ALD 1, Dr. B. Kaladhar and Others v. Government of A.P., Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department and Others; AIR 2008 J&K 11, Mir G.R. Wali v. State and others and Writ Petition No.16998 of 2007, Dr.Surekha Dabas v. The Union Territory of Pondicherry in the High Court of Judicature of Madras; (2005) 13 SCC 461, Vijay Jaimni v. Medical Council of India and Others and (2005) 13 SCC 464, Harshali v. State of Maharashtra and Others.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 22 - Cited by 22 - L N Reddy - Full Document

Shafali Nandwani vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 25 September, 2002

In Shafali Nandwani (supra), the dispute was between two candidates both of whom had given first choice for MD Medicines at the first counselling, however, both of them had accepted different subjects (speciality) and were allowed but also got waitlisted for second counselling. During the second counselling, a seat in MD Medicine became available on account of the same being vacated by a candidate who was also lower than the respondent No.4 but above the appellant. In such circumstances, the MD Medicine seat was allowed to the appellant and not to respondent no.4 and it was held that it was on account of fortuitous circumstance which did not negate reasonableness of the rule. The plea of the respondent no.4 to permit WP (C) 9763 of 2009 Page 19 of 30 her to take admission in MD Medicine for subsequent academic year was also declined by the Supreme Court on the ground that that would violate the relevant regulations of Medical Council of India. Another factor was taken into consideration by the Supreme Court was that appellant and respondent had already completed 2½ years of their respective course and it was held that it would be improper to allow the change as it would amount to colossal waste of efforts and expenditure.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 20 - R Pal - Full Document

Shri Ritesh R. Sah vs Dr. Y.L. Yamul & Ors on 15 February, 1996

24. A candidate belonging to a reserved category if he is permitted and he gets admission on open merit, then he is to be treated as an open category candidate for the purpose of computation of percentage of reservation. It was so held by the Supreme Court in Ritesh R. Shah (supra). In this case, a number of candidates could have been admitted on the basis of marks secured in open merit, yet they were admitted against reserved category, as a result, the petitioner in that case belonging to the reserved category was excluded from getting admission into the MBBS course. Since the petitioner was a single applicant before the court, it was directed that the petitioner to be admitted to any one of the colleges where the seat was available in the MBBS course and in case no seat was available even then the respondents were directed to admit him to wherever the seat could be made available in any college.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 463 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

State Of Bihar And Ors vs M. Neethi Chandra, Etc. Etc on 10 September, 1996

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on (2002) 8 SCC 152, Shafali Nandwani v. State of Haryana and others; (2005) 13 WP (C) 9763 of 2009 Page 17 of 30 Supreme Court Cases 677, M.A. Salam (II) v. Principal Secretary, Govt. Of A.P. and others, (1996) 3 SCC 253, Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and others, (1996) 6 SCC 36, State of Bihar and Others v. M. Neethi Chandra and Others; 2006 (12) ALD 1, Dr. B. Kaladhar and Others v. Government of A.P., Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department and Others; AIR 2008 J&K 11, Mir G.R. Wali v. State and others and Writ Petition No.16998 of 2007, Dr.Surekha Dabas v. The Union Territory of Pondicherry in the High Court of Judicature of Madras; (2005) 13 SCC 461, Vijay Jaimni v. Medical Council of India and Others and (2005) 13 SCC 464, Harshali v. State of Maharashtra and Others.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Arvind Kumar Kankane vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 August, 2001

In Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P., (2001) 8 SCC 355, it was held by the court that if a vacant seat was not included in the initial counselling and on the basis of first counselling several candidates had accepted the seats offered to them for different courses and when the vacant seat was offered in the second counselling then the plea of candidates who had already accepted the allotment of seats at the first counselling that they should be give a chance in order of merit to opt for that seat was rejected by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had held that the fact that the subject of choice of a person higher in merit list was given to a candidate who was lower in rank in the merit list but which was on account of fortuitous circumstance, will not negate the reasonableness of the rule which provides that the vacant seats should be provided to the candidate next in the merit list.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 85 - Full Document

Dr. Surekha Dabas vs The Union Territory Of Pondicherry on 6 July, 2007

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on (2002) 8 SCC 152, Shafali Nandwani v. State of Haryana and others; (2005) 13 WP (C) 9763 of 2009 Page 17 of 30 Supreme Court Cases 677, M.A. Salam (II) v. Principal Secretary, Govt. Of A.P. and others, (1996) 3 SCC 253, Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and others, (1996) 6 SCC 36, State of Bihar and Others v. M. Neethi Chandra and Others; 2006 (12) ALD 1, Dr. B. Kaladhar and Others v. Government of A.P., Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department and Others; AIR 2008 J&K 11, Mir G.R. Wali v. State and others and Writ Petition No.16998 of 2007, Dr.Surekha Dabas v. The Union Territory of Pondicherry in the High Court of Judicature of Madras; (2005) 13 SCC 461, Vijay Jaimni v. Medical Council of India and Others and (2005) 13 SCC 464, Harshali v. State of Maharashtra and Others.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - A Kulasekaran - Full Document

Dr. Javed Iqbal vs State And Ors. on 5 March, 2004

25. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on Dr. Javed Ikbal and others v. State & ors, MANU/JK/0089/2004 where the candidate had challenged the allocation of discipline on the ground that there were 31 seats advertised in MD Medicine and out of the category quota of 35%, the category candidates were entitled to 11 seats with 10.85%. However, only 10 seats had been allocated to the reserved category candidate for the discipline of medicine, whereas 11 seats had been allocated to the candidates in the open merit category. The petitioner in this case had been selected in the open merit category and had been adjusted against the reserved category resulting in reduction of one seat of reserved category candidates. The last candidate who was selected in the reserved category had obtained 153 marks, whereas in the open category last candidate had obtained 170 marks. It was held that it is a settled position of law that a candidate belonging to any reserved category, if he is selected in the open category, the reserved vacancy is to be allotted to the next candidate of the reserved category and such a seat will not be deemed to be filled by the candidate who has got in general merit as a reserved category. It was held that merit cannot be permitted to become demerit as otherwise this will frustrate the very purpose and object.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - P Kohli - Full Document
1