Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 47 (0.42 seconds)Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000
Dr. Pradeep Jain Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 22 June, 1984
28. It is pointed out that the decision of the Supreme
Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India 23 does not
apply to the State of Telangana, in view of Article 371D of
the Constitution of India. It is also urged that the Division
Bench of this Court in W.P.No.18047 of 2023 and batch
has not dealt with the effect of the Presidential Order, 1974
on the 2021 Rules and the said decision has no bearing on
the controversy involved in these writ petitions. It is also
submitted that this Court is required to examine whether
the rules for admission have been changed after the
process of admission has begun.
Section 3 in Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Saurabh Chaudri & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 November, 2003
In Tanvi Behl (supra),
while referring to its previous decisions in D.P.Joshi
(supra) and Saurabh Chaudri (supra), it was held that
domicile/residence based reservation is not the concept
totally overthrown or jettisoned and that residence based
reservation can be provided in the matter of admission to
post graduate courses and same is permissible in law. The
fourth issue is accordingly answered.
D. P. Joshi vs The State Of Madhya Bharat Andanother on 27 January, 1955
In Tanvi Behl (supra),
while referring to its previous decisions in D.P.Joshi
(supra) and Saurabh Chaudri (supra), it was held that
domicile/residence based reservation is not the concept
totally overthrown or jettisoned and that residence based
reservation can be provided in the matter of admission to
post graduate courses and same is permissible in law. The
fourth issue is accordingly answered.
Vivek Gupta vs Central Bureau Of Investigation And ... on 25 September, 2003
(SCC pp. 692-93, para 22)"22. ... We are, therefore, of
the view that so far as admissions to postgraduate
courses, such as MS, MD and the like are concerned,
it would be eminently desirable not to provide for any
reservation based on residence requirement within the
State or on institutional preference. But, having
regard to broader considerations of equality of
opportunity and institutional continuity in education
which has its own importance and value, we would
direct that though residence requirement within the
72
State shall not be a ground for reservation in
admissions to postgraduate courses, a certain
percentage of seats may in the present circumstances,
be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in
the sense that a student who has passed MBBS
course from a medical college or university, may be
given preference for admission to the postgraduate
course in the same medical college or university but
such reservation on the basis of institutional
preference should not in any event exceed 50% of the
total number of open seats available for admission to
the postgraduate course. This outer limit which we are
fixing will also be subject to revision on the lower side
by the Indian Medical Council in the same manner as
directed by us in the case of admissions to the MBBS
course. But, even in regard to admissions to the
postgraduate course, we would direct that so far as
super specialities such as neuro-surgery and
cardiology are concerned, there should be no
reservation at all even on the basis of institutional
preference and admissions should be granted purely
on merit on all-India basis."(emphasis supplied)] but
such observations in Pradeep Jain [Pradeep
Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654] , when read
with reference to aforesaid paras 29 to 32 of the
decision in Saurabh Chaudri [Saurabh Chaudri
v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146 : 2 SCEC 452],
the inevitable result is that domicile/residence-based
reservation has not been taken as an anathema
altogether to these admission processes."
Tanvi Behl vs Shrey Goel on 9 December, 2019
In Tanvi Behl (supra),
while referring to its previous decisions in D.P.Joshi
(supra) and Saurabh Chaudri (supra), it was held that
domicile/residence based reservation is not the concept
totally overthrown or jettisoned and that residence based
reservation can be provided in the matter of admission to
post graduate courses and same is permissible in law. The
fourth issue is accordingly answered.
Magan Mehrotra And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 December, 2002
A two-
Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Tanvi Behl vs.
50 1955 SCC OnLine SC 4
51 (1984) 3 SCC 654
52 (1995) 2 SCC 135
53 1955 SCC OnLine SC 4
76
Shrey Goel 54 considered its previous judgments in Magan
Mehrotra vs. Union of India 55, Dr. Pradeep Jain vs.
Union of India 56, and a Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudri vs. Union of India57
and interpreted the ratio of its previous decisions, which
have already been referred to supra.