Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)St. Stephen'S College vs University Of Delhi on 6 December, 1991
In St. Stephen's case (AIR 1992 SC 1630) (supra), too, Hon'ble Supreme Court, directed in the operative portion of the order, that however, those students who had already been admitted pursuant to the direction issued by this Court or the High Court, shall be allowed to complete their courses and any admissions made hitherto, by St. Stephen's College and Allahabad Agricultural Institute, shall not be disturbed.
Section 28 in Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Nishi Maghu Etc. Etc vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir And Ors on 9 May, 1980
26. Before. Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was asserted that the selection was made by St. Stephen's College, by judging the candidates at the interview and the marks secured in the examination are not taken into account for consideration and the marks are only relevant for calling a candidate for interview. But, Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that the marks obtained in the written examination are of greater weight and the interview is only the supplementery test. It was observed; that there existed nothing on record to suggest that the interview conducted by the Selection Committee, was contrary to the principle laid down by this Court in Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 1823, A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of T.N., (1971) 1 SCC 38 : (AIR 1971 SC 2303); Nishi Manghu v. State of J & K. (1980) 4 SCC 95 : (AIR 1980 SC 1975), Ajay Hansia v. Khalid Mujib Schravaroi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 : (AIR 1981 SC 487), Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 4 SCC 159 : (AIR 198 1 SC 1777) and Koshal Kumar Gupta v. State of J & K. (1984) 2 SCC 652 : (AIR 1984 SC 1056). Hon'ble Supreme Court found that there was no arbitrariness, or vice of lack of scientific basis in the interview or in the selection and further observed that the Court was unable to accept the submission that the College Admission Programme is arbitrary and the University criteria for selection is objective. In reply, to the second question, in the end, it was observed that the St. Stephen's College was not bound by means of the circular of the University.
Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980
26. Before. Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was asserted that the selection was made by St. Stephen's College, by judging the candidates at the interview and the marks secured in the examination are not taken into account for consideration and the marks are only relevant for calling a candidate for interview. But, Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that the marks obtained in the written examination are of greater weight and the interview is only the supplementery test. It was observed; that there existed nothing on record to suggest that the interview conducted by the Selection Committee, was contrary to the principle laid down by this Court in Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 1823, A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of T.N., (1971) 1 SCC 38 : (AIR 1971 SC 2303); Nishi Manghu v. State of J & K. (1980) 4 SCC 95 : (AIR 1980 SC 1975), Ajay Hansia v. Khalid Mujib Schravaroi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 : (AIR 1981 SC 487), Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 4 SCC 159 : (AIR 198 1 SC 1777) and Koshal Kumar Gupta v. State of J & K. (1984) 2 SCC 652 : (AIR 1984 SC 1056). Hon'ble Supreme Court found that there was no arbitrariness, or vice of lack of scientific basis in the interview or in the selection and further observed that the Court was unable to accept the submission that the College Admission Programme is arbitrary and the University criteria for selection is objective. In reply, to the second question, in the end, it was observed that the St. Stephen's College was not bound by means of the circular of the University.
The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College ... vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 26 April, 1974
In Ahmedabad St. Xavier' s College Society v. State of Gujarat, (1974) 1 SCC 717 : (AIR 1974 SC 1389) a decision of nine Judges Bench, it was observed in para 46 of the report:--
Lilly Kurian vs Sr. Lewina And Ors on 15 September, 1978
33. Hon'ble Mathew, J. in para 77 was of the view that no educational institution established by a religious or linguistic minority can claim total immunity from regulations by the legislature or the University if it wants affiliation or recognition, but the character of the permissible regulation must depend upon their purpose. It was observed that in every case, when the reasonableness of a regulation comes up for consideration before the Court, the question to be asked and answered is whether the regulation is calculated to subserve or will in effect subserve the purpose of recognition or affiliation. The Regulation must be conducive to the interest of the minority community and to those persons who resort to it. Hon'ble Mathew, J. relied upon the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lily Kurian v. Sr. Lewina, (1979) 2 SCC 124 : (AIR 1979 SC 52), wherein it was observed (para 36 of AIR) .
Rt. Rev. Magr. Mark Netto vs Govt. Of Kerala & Ors on 11 September, 1978
36. In Rt. Rev. Magr. Mark Netto v. Govt. of Kerala, (1979) 1 SCC 23 : (AIR 1979 SC 83), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the denial of permission to the management of a minority school to admit girls students was held to be bad. The withholding of permission for admission of girls students in the boys minority school was violative of Article 30(1). It was also observed that the rule sanctioning such refusal of permission crosses the barrier of regulatory measures and comes in the region of interference with the administration of the institution, a right which is guaranteed to the minority under Article 30(1). The Court restricted the operation of the rule and made it inapplicable to the minority educational institution.
The Director Of School Education ... vs Rev. Brother G. Arogiasamy S.H.J. on 10 September, 1970
In Director of School Education, Govt. of T.N. v. Rev. Brother G. Arogiasamy, AIR 1971 Mad 440, Madras High Court had an occasion to consider the validity of an uniform procedure prescribed by the State Government for admission of candidates to the aided training schools. The Government directed that the candidates should be selected by the school authorities by interviewing every candidate eligible for admission and assessing and awarding marks in the interview. The marks awarded to each candidate in the interview will be added to the marks secured by the candidate in the SSLC public examination. On the basis of the aggregate of marks in the SSLC examination and those obtained at the interview the selection was to be made without any further discretion. The High Court observed that that the method of selection placed serious restrictions on the freedom of the minority institution to admit their own students. It was found that the students of the minority community could not compete with the students belonging to other communities. The applications of students from other communities could not he restricted under law. The result was that the students of minority community for whose benefit the institution was founded, had little chance of getting admission. The High Court held that the Government order prescribing the uniform method of selection could not be applied to minority institutions.