Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.93 seconds)
Azamal Ahamad And Others vs Baba Farid University Of Health ... on 7 March, 2014 cites

Ashok Chand Singhvi vs University Of Jodhpur & Ors on 18 January, 1989

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prospectus provided that admission was to be done on the basis of the students who had qualified in PMET and if the students were not available, then PMET appeared candidates could be considered. Similarly, candidates from other States could also be taken if Punjab State candidates were not available and in pursuance of the said conditions, the petitioners had been given admission, being students belonging to the other States. It was further submitted that there was an Appellate Authority provided in the prospectus namely the Director, Research and Medical Education for any dispute and the Appellate Authority had decided in their favour on 19.08.2009 and a sympathetic view had been directed to be taken but, in spite of that, the representation had been rejected subsequently. It was thus, submitted that the admission had been made as per the clauses and in accordance with law and the course was now over and the students have completed the course Gupta Shivani 2014.03.10 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 20407 of 2009 5 and no loss was caused to anyone as there were no other students available on the cut off date. Reference was made to the additional affidavit filed vide C.M. No. 13360 of 2010 wherein, it was mentioned that 39 vacant seats had been left after completion of admission in the State of Punjab and there was also one vacant seat left with the petitioner no. 6-institute to contend that it was not that ineligible students had been given admission at the cost of some eligible students. Reliance has been placed upon Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala vs. Abhinav Taneja and others, (1990) 3 SCC 468; Ashok Chand Singhvi vs. University of Jodhpur and others, (1989) 1 SCC 399; Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhatishgarh and others, 2012 (7) SCC 433; Deepa Thomas and others vs. Medical Council of India and others, (2012) 3 SCC 430 and Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University and another, 1986 (Supp.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 105 - M M Dutt - Full Document

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

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prospectus provided that admission was to be done on the basis of the students who had qualified in PMET and if the students were not available, then PMET appeared candidates could be considered. Similarly, candidates from other States could also be taken if Punjab State candidates were not available and in pursuance of the said conditions, the petitioners had been given admission, being students belonging to the other States. It was further submitted that there was an Appellate Authority provided in the prospectus namely the Director, Research and Medical Education for any dispute and the Appellate Authority had decided in their favour on 19.08.2009 and a sympathetic view had been directed to be taken but, in spite of that, the representation had been rejected subsequently. It was thus, submitted that the admission had been made as per the clauses and in accordance with law and the course was now over and the students have completed the course Gupta Shivani 2014.03.10 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 20407 of 2009 5 and no loss was caused to anyone as there were no other students available on the cut off date. Reference was made to the additional affidavit filed vide C.M. No. 13360 of 2010 wherein, it was mentioned that 39 vacant seats had been left after completion of admission in the State of Punjab and there was also one vacant seat left with the petitioner no. 6-institute to contend that it was not that ineligible students had been given admission at the cost of some eligible students. Reliance has been placed upon Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala vs. Abhinav Taneja and others, (1990) 3 SCC 468; Ashok Chand Singhvi vs. University of Jodhpur and others, (1989) 1 SCC 399; Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhatishgarh and others, 2012 (7) SCC 433; Deepa Thomas and others vs. Medical Council of India and others, (2012) 3 SCC 430 and Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University and another, 1986 (Supp.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 278 - S Kumar - Full Document

Deepa Thomas & Ors vs Medical Council Of India & Ors on 25 January, 2012

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prospectus provided that admission was to be done on the basis of the students who had qualified in PMET and if the students were not available, then PMET appeared candidates could be considered. Similarly, candidates from other States could also be taken if Punjab State candidates were not available and in pursuance of the said conditions, the petitioners had been given admission, being students belonging to the other States. It was further submitted that there was an Appellate Authority provided in the prospectus namely the Director, Research and Medical Education for any dispute and the Appellate Authority had decided in their favour on 19.08.2009 and a sympathetic view had been directed to be taken but, in spite of that, the representation had been rejected subsequently. It was thus, submitted that the admission had been made as per the clauses and in accordance with law and the course was now over and the students have completed the course Gupta Shivani 2014.03.10 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 20407 of 2009 5 and no loss was caused to anyone as there were no other students available on the cut off date. Reference was made to the additional affidavit filed vide C.M. No. 13360 of 2010 wherein, it was mentioned that 39 vacant seats had been left after completion of admission in the State of Punjab and there was also one vacant seat left with the petitioner no. 6-institute to contend that it was not that ineligible students had been given admission at the cost of some eligible students. Reliance has been placed upon Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala vs. Abhinav Taneja and others, (1990) 3 SCC 468; Ashok Chand Singhvi vs. University of Jodhpur and others, (1989) 1 SCC 399; Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhatishgarh and others, 2012 (7) SCC 433; Deepa Thomas and others vs. Medical Council of India and others, (2012) 3 SCC 430 and Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University and another, 1986 (Supp.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 14 - C Joseph - Full Document

Rajendra Prasad Mathur Etc vs Karnataka University & Anr on 1 May, 1986

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prospectus provided that admission was to be done on the basis of the students who had qualified in PMET and if the students were not available, then PMET appeared candidates could be considered. Similarly, candidates from other States could also be taken if Punjab State candidates were not available and in pursuance of the said conditions, the petitioners had been given admission, being students belonging to the other States. It was further submitted that there was an Appellate Authority provided in the prospectus namely the Director, Research and Medical Education for any dispute and the Appellate Authority had decided in their favour on 19.08.2009 and a sympathetic view had been directed to be taken but, in spite of that, the representation had been rejected subsequently. It was thus, submitted that the admission had been made as per the clauses and in accordance with law and the course was now over and the students have completed the course Gupta Shivani 2014.03.10 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 20407 of 2009 5 and no loss was caused to anyone as there were no other students available on the cut off date. Reference was made to the additional affidavit filed vide C.M. No. 13360 of 2010 wherein, it was mentioned that 39 vacant seats had been left after completion of admission in the State of Punjab and there was also one vacant seat left with the petitioner no. 6-institute to contend that it was not that ineligible students had been given admission at the cost of some eligible students. Reliance has been placed upon Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala vs. Abhinav Taneja and others, (1990) 3 SCC 468; Ashok Chand Singhvi vs. University of Jodhpur and others, (1989) 1 SCC 399; Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhatishgarh and others, 2012 (7) SCC 433; Deepa Thomas and others vs. Medical Council of India and others, (2012) 3 SCC 430 and Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University and another, 1986 (Supp.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 234 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Mr. Subhash Chandra vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 9 July, 2009

That from the perusal of the above clauses, it would be clear that candidates had to have a minimum of 50% marks in PCB in the 10+2 examination in the present case. The argument of counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioners belong to other States and were Backward Class category students and, therefore, in their case, 40% marks was the eligibility, cannot be accepted. Once the institute has given admission to the petitioners on All India basis, they are not entitled to claim the benefit of the Backward Class certificate and claim that they were eligible since only 40% marks were to be counted for the purpose of eligibility. Once the admission was against the said quota, then the minimum of 50% marks Gupta Shivani 2014.03.10 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 20407 of 2009 11 would have been the requirement and admittedly, the petitioners do not fulfill the said qualification. The benefit of backward class could only have been given if the petitioners belong to the State of Punjab and the certificate of the other State would be of no use. The Apex Court in Subhash Chandra and another vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, 2009 (4) RSJ 77 held that a person is to be resident of the same State to claim the said benefit. In the said case, the petitioners had claimed themselves to be entitled to the benefits of the Presidential notification declaring their caste to be Scheduled caste, which had been rejected by the Delhi Administration and the Single Judge had granted the benefit to the second generation migrant. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court also upheld the said view. The appeals filed were allowed by the Apex Court by holding that if the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in other States are considered as backward classes in Delhi, intensive studies were required to the question that they would come in the purview of the definition of the Backward Classes so as to answer the description of being socially and educationally backward. Once the petitioners themselves were not eligible and were well aware of the terms and conditions of the prospectus which were binding upon them, they cannot turn around and now contend that merely because they have completed the course, they are entitled for regularization of admission.
Central Information Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 136 - Full Document

Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr vs Gis Jose & Ors on 8 September, 2008

In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in Mahatma Gandhi University and another vs. Gis Jose and others, 2009 (1) RSJ 438 set aside the order of the High Court wherein, the student had secured only 53.3% marks in a qualifying examination against the minimum requirement of the cut off marks as 55%. The submission that the student had never misrepresented was rejected. It was held that once an irregular admission had been given in breach of Rules, she should not be allowed to complete the course and to write the examination and the same would be illegal. It was held that misplaced sympathy should not be shown in total breach of rules. The relevant observations read thus:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 107 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

Thapar Institute Of Engineering ... vs Abhinav Taneja And Ors on 6 April, 1990

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prospectus provided that admission was to be done on the basis of the students who had qualified in PMET and if the students were not available, then PMET appeared candidates could be considered. Similarly, candidates from other States could also be taken if Punjab State candidates were not available and in pursuance of the said conditions, the petitioners had been given admission, being students belonging to the other States. It was further submitted that there was an Appellate Authority provided in the prospectus namely the Director, Research and Medical Education for any dispute and the Appellate Authority had decided in their favour on 19.08.2009 and a sympathetic view had been directed to be taken but, in spite of that, the representation had been rejected subsequently. It was thus, submitted that the admission had been made as per the clauses and in accordance with law and the course was now over and the students have completed the course Gupta Shivani 2014.03.10 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 20407 of 2009 5 and no loss was caused to anyone as there were no other students available on the cut off date. Reference was made to the additional affidavit filed vide C.M. No. 13360 of 2010 wherein, it was mentioned that 39 vacant seats had been left after completion of admission in the State of Punjab and there was also one vacant seat left with the petitioner no. 6-institute to contend that it was not that ineligible students had been given admission at the cost of some eligible students. Reliance has been placed upon Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala vs. Abhinav Taneja and others, (1990) 3 SCC 468; Ashok Chand Singhvi vs. University of Jodhpur and others, (1989) 1 SCC 399; Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhatishgarh and others, 2012 (7) SCC 433; Deepa Thomas and others vs. Medical Council of India and others, (2012) 3 SCC 430 and Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University and another, 1986 (Supp.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 18 - P B Sawant - Full Document

The Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University vs G. Hemlatha And Ors on 23 August, 2012

Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5992 of 2012, The Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore vs. G. Hemlatha and others decided on 23.08.2012 where it had been held that once the eligibility criteria is prescribed, it must be strictly adhered to and any dilution or tampering with it will work injustice on other candidates.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 54 - Full Document
1   2 Next