Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)
P.Chozhan vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019 cites

Dularey Lodh vs The Iiird Addl. District Judge, Kanpur & ... on 3 May, 1984

District Judge, Kanpur, 1984 All Ren Gas (SC) 82: AIR 1984 SC 1260, that in such circumstances doctrine of Eclipse will apply Judgment of the Apex Court in Dularey Lodh case (supra) has also been followed in http://www.judis.nic.in 12 the case Kailash Sonkar V. Maya Devi, (1984) 2 SCC 91: AIR 1984 SC 600. In paragraph 34 doctrine of Eclipse has been discussed. In the case Dularey Lodh it has been observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - S M Ali - Full Document

Kailash Sonkar vs Smt. Maya Devi on 16 December, 1983

District Judge, Kanpur, 1984 All Ren Gas (SC) 82: AIR 1984 SC 1260, that in such circumstances doctrine of Eclipse will apply Judgment of the Apex Court in Dularey Lodh case (supra) has also been followed in http://www.judis.nic.in 12 the case Kailash Sonkar V. Maya Devi, (1984) 2 SCC 91: AIR 1984 SC 600. In paragraph 34 doctrine of Eclipse has been discussed. In the case Dularey Lodh it has been observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 65 - S M Ali - Full Document

Abhishek Verma vs National Law School Of Delhi & Anr. on 1 August, 2008

8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the three judgments, wherein the High Courts based on the relevant admission process have found that when a candidate who is awaiting results is eligible and to be given a provisional admission in the higher studies. Same advantage cannot be deprived for the person, who has taken up compartmental examination and awaiting results. Observations made by the High Court of Delhi in Abhishek Verma Vs. National Law School of Delhi [W.P.(C) 5269 of 2008 Judgment dated 01.08.2008] “13.Admittedly, in the admission notice 2008-2009 issued by the respondents while laying down the eligibility criteria, the respondent did not debar any student, who has passed qualifying senior secondary school 10+2 examination with compartment, from seeking admission to the said five year B.A., L.L.B., (Hons.) programme/course. That being the position, in my view it is not open to the respondent to subsequently alter the eligibility condition so as to exclude those students who appear in the aforesaid qualifying examination in the year 2008 and who pass the said examination with compartment. Pertinently, the http://www.judis.nic.in 7 impugned condition does not debar all candidates who have passed senior secondary school 10+2 examination with compartment. It is only those candidates who have appeared in the said qualifying examination in the year 2008 and have secured a compartment who are sought to be barred from seeking admission by the impugned condition contained in the communication dated 11.06.2008 issued by the respondent.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Km. Shilpi Saini vs State Of Uttaranchal And Ors. on 27 August, 2003

15.Since a compartment is not considered as a taboo and candidates with a compartment are also eligible to apply and be considered for the Course, inter alia, of Bachelor of Journalism (Mass Communication), there can be no justification to treat such candidates any less considerately when compared to those whose result of the qualifying examination is not at all declared. Pertinently, a candidate with a compartment who passes the compartment examination with the requisite percentage is not excluded from consideration if his result is declared by the time his turn for counseling arrives. Whether it is a candidate who is http://www.judis.nic.in 10 awaiting result of his compartment examination, or a candidate who is awaiting the result of his qualifying examination, they all stand on the same footing. The object of the rule, which allows candidates whose results of the qualifying examination are not declared by the time their turn for counseling arrives to furnish their result of the qualifying examination by 31.10.2008, is to save them from being deprived of admission to the concerned course for reasons beyond their control, as it is the concerned Board, examining body who has to declare the results of the qualifying examination. The purpose is also to grant admission to the more meritorious students as found on the basis of the entrance test result, and not allow those lower in merit to steal a march over them merely because the more meritorious ones do not have the result of the qualifying examination in their hands when they are called for counseling. The further classification sough to be created by the respondents between those who are awaiting the compartment examination results of the qualifying examination and those whose qualifying examination results are not declared has no rational http://www.judis.nic.in 11 nexus with the object sought to be achieved as aforesaid. When, therefore, the respondent University permits students, who are awaiting their result for the qualifying examination to take provisional admission by fulfilling certain requirements, it does not stand to reason that candidates who are also awaiting their result of the qualifying examination on account of having secured a compartment result, should be treated differently.” Km.Shilpi Saini Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others [W.P.No.717 of 2003 Judgment dated 27.08.2003] “9.It is a case where at the time of first counseling the petitioner was not eligible but subsequently having passed her compartment examination, she has become eligible.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - R Tandon - Full Document
1