Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Anr vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 10 August, 1999
In Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999 (7) SCC 120, the circumstances under which the case arose has already been discussed. The impugned issue was reduction of the eligibility criteria for Scheduled Caste candidates by bringing down the minimum marks prescribed by the M.C.I. While the Supreme Courts held that such an order by the Government was liable to be struck down, at the same time, held that prescription of higher standards by the State authority was sustainable. In paragraph 39 of the judgment, it was held that in every case, the minimum standards as laid down by the Central statute have to be complied with by the State while making admissions, and it may, in addition, lay down other additional norms for admission or to regulate admissions in the exercise of its powers under Entry 25 of List III in a manner not inconsistent with or in a manner which does not dilute the criteria so laid down.
State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Etc. Etc vs Adhiyaman Educational & Research ... on 24 March, 1995
13. Mrs. Saraswathi Prasad appearing for the Management in W.P.No. 1965 of 2005, contends that the Institution is recognised as a minority institution. According to her, students were admitted for 2003-2004 and the admissions were over by March/April of 2003. Regulations made by the Dental Council of India required only 50% of the total marks in English and Science subjects taken together and in the Competitive Entrance Examination. The admitted students satisfied the said criteria. Reference was also made to the Regulations for B.D.S. Course issued by the University in terms of which, the minimum marks is shown only as 50% marks on aggregate. It was amended only very much subsequent to G.O.Ms.No. 100. Reference was made to the observations of the Supreme Courts in State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Institute, 1995 (4) SCC 104. Learned counsel contends that it is only when there are more applicants than the available seats, the State authority was not prevented from laying down higher standards and such an action cannot be termed as violation of Entry 66 of the Union List. But if seats are available and an eligible candidate is denied admission on the ground that the candidate was not qualified according to its own standards, then the action of the State would be illegal. Moreover, this is not a case of filling up of vacancies as against Government Quota over which the Government can have a say, but the seats relate to the Management Quota for which the State Government cannot prescribe any qualification over and above the M.C.I. qualifications.
State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr vs S.V. Bratheep (Minor) And Ors on 16 March, 2004
32. A more important decision in this context is the one in State of Tamil Nadu v. S.V. Bratheep and Ors., 2004 (2) CTC 227 : 2004 (4) SCC 513, in which, a very similar order was questioned. The impugned Government Order in that case was of converse effect, namely, reducing the required minimum marks. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed by the Government, the Supreme Courts had made it clear that it was certainly permissible for the State Government to prescribe higher qualifications for the purposes of admission to the Engineering Colleges than what had been prescribed by the A.I.C.T.E. Therefore, with the result, I am unable to sustain the contention on behalf of the petitioners that it is not open to the State Government or the University to prescribe higher qualifications than the minimum qualification stipulated by the controlling authorities like M.C.I., D.C.I., A.I.C.T.E., etc. It is certainly open to the State Government to frame such Regulations prescribing higher qualifications in order to shortlist the number of applicants in the event of the number of applicants exceeding the available seats. The contention by Ms. Saraswathi Prasad as though there were more vacancies than the number of applications is factually not correct. Applications for M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. courses exceed several times more than the available vacancies which explains high capitation fee for the said two courses. Hence, I am inclined to hold that it is certainly open to the State Government or the University to enhance the eligibility criteria for admission.
Section 22 in The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 30 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 254 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University (Chennai) Act, 1987
Dr. Sadhna Devi & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 19 February, 1997
The validity of the said Government Order was questioned in Dr. Sadhana Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1997 (3) SCC 90. In that case, the Supreme Courts struck down the Government Order. The State Government subsequently moved an application praying that the Government should be given liberty to reduce the cut-off percentage from 30% to 20%, for the reserved category. But even before a decision was given by the Courts, an ordinance was passed by the Government to the said effect.