Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)
West Bengal Council Of Higher Secondary ... vs Subhabrata Dutta on 10 May, 1999 cites

C.B.S.E. & Anr vs P.Sunil Kumar & Ors on 12 May, 1998

24. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Judge committed an error in holding that Regulation 14 aforementioned is directory in nature. Furthermore, the learned trial Judge could not have allowed the respondent herein to appear at the examination as a special case. Such a practice has been deprecated by the Apex Court in no uncertain terms in Central Board of Secondary Education v. P. Sunil Kumar .
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 150 - S V Manohar - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Vikas Sahebrao Roundale And Ors on 11 August, 1992

"On the other hand, there are a series of decisions where the Supreme Court has clearly laid down the law that a pupil who is not entitled to appear in the examination should not be allowed to do so in violation of the statutory regulation. Reference in this connection may be made to A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P. , State of T.N. v. St. Joseph Teachers' Training Institute, , State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale , Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati , Central Board of Secondary Education v. P. Sunil Kumar, . In a decision reported in 1997 (1) Cal LJ 143, a Division Bench of this Court was considering a matter relating to the right of a person to take admission and not with the question raised therein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 164 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

G. Kalyan Sundaram vs Uco Bank And Anr. on 15 March, 1995

Thus apart from the directions as to appointment on compassionate grounds being against statutory provisions, such direction does not take note of this fact. Whatever it may be the Court should not have directed the appointment on compassionate grounds. The jurisdiction under mandamus cannot be exercised in that fashion.' 'In G. Kalyan Sundaram v. UCO Bank reported in (1995) 2 Cal LT (HC) 201, I had observed that in the fact of that case even sympathy has no role to play and in that connection noticed :
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 6 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, ... vs Sharat Narayan Parab on 12 November, 1997

8. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, submitted mat the learned trial Judge went wrong in holding that Regulation 14 is directory in nature. The learned counsel before the learned trial Judge as also before this bench has placed strong reliance in Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Bombay v. Sharat Narayan Parab , C.B.S.E. v. P. Sunil Kumar , State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, , Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal as also an unreported Division Bench decision of this Court in Ashoke Sana v. State of West Bengal (M.A.T. No. 4179 of 1998) disposed of on 25th February, 1999 (reported in 1999 (2) Cal LT 1) and submitted that the petitioner being not an eligible candidate, he cannot be permitted to sit at the examination.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next