Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)
Miss A. Karthiga, Minor, Rep. By Mother ... vs The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Private ... on 11 September, 2006 cites

P.A. Inamdar & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 August, 2005

19. The question that arises in the present case may perhaps not have been dealt with earlier, in the sense, the right of a private institution to impose a higher percentage of qualifying marks has not been challenged before. This is only because historically, until recently, there were only Government Medical Colleges and private institutions are a fairly recent phenomenon. But however, when the Supreme Court has upheld the right of the Government, as the body which runs the medical colleges, to prescribe a test of eligibility, equally, the private institutions, which run their own colleges, have the same right. In fact, their right perhaps is wider than the State's, which will have to follow the reservation policy while admitting students. As we have seen from the judgments in Pai Foundation's case and Inamdar's case, private unaided medical institutions cannot be forced to adopt the reservation policy and it is for them to devise an arrangement voluntarily to fulfill the social obligations that the Constitution demands, but it is made clear that is purely on their own volition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 737 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 31 October, 2002

19. The question that arises in the present case may perhaps not have been dealt with earlier, in the sense, the right of a private institution to impose a higher percentage of qualifying marks has not been challenged before. This is only because historically, until recently, there were only Government Medical Colleges and private institutions are a fairly recent phenomenon. But however, when the Supreme Court has upheld the right of the Government, as the body which runs the medical colleges, to prescribe a test of eligibility, equally, the private institutions, which run their own colleges, have the same right. In fact, their right perhaps is wider than the State's, which will have to follow the reservation policy while admitting students. As we have seen from the judgments in Pai Foundation's case and Inamdar's case, private unaided medical institutions cannot be forced to adopt the reservation policy and it is for them to devise an arrangement voluntarily to fulfill the social obligations that the Constitution demands, but it is made clear that is purely on their own volition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 123 - Cited by 914 - Full Document

N.Priyadarshini vs The Secretary To Government on 27 June, 2005

In N. Priyadarshini v. The Secretary to Government, Education Department , the First Bench of this Court held that the Government Page 2507 Order declaring that admissions to professional courses to be purely on basis of marks obtained in Plus Two Examinations alone must be quashed. Reference was made to the Medical Council of India Regulations which provide that in States having more than one University/Board/Examining Body conducting the qualifying examination, a competitive entrance examination should be held and therefore, the First Bench quashed the G.O. on the ground that there would be clear discrimination if the Common Entrance Test is abolished and the marks obtained by candidates in the qualifying examination alone are taken into account, since there are different examining boards, different syllabi, different question papers etc.
Madras High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Ravindra Kumar Rai vs State Of Maharashtra & Others on 27 February, 1998

In Ravindra Kumar Rai v. State of Maharashtra , the State of Maharashtra contended that it will not be possible to conduct a Common Entrance Test since the candidates from C.B.S.E. Board were small in number and therefore, it was not possible for the State to have a Common Entrance Test and that it would be an arduous task. This contention was rejected by the Supreme Court since it fell foul of the Medical Council of India Regulations.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 40 - M J Rao - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr vs S.V. Bratheep (Minor) And Ors on 16 March, 2004

In State of Tamil Nadu v. S.V. Bratheep , the question whether the State Government could prescribe a higher minimum than what had been prescribed by the A.I.C.T.E. and whether it can be said to be in any manner adverse to the standards fixed by the A.I.C.T.E. or reduce the standards fixed by it, the Supreme Court answered, "In our opinion, it does not." The Supreme Court upheld the right of the State Government to prescribe marks higher than the minimum prescribed in the qualifying examination in order to be eligible to participate in the Common Entrance Test as a right in addition to the Common Entrance Test. They held that the streams proposed by A.I.C.T.E. are not belittled in any manner. Therefore, precisely the same issue was raised in the above case, and the Supreme Court upheld the right of the State Government to fix higher marks than the minimum in the qualifying examination. Therefore, the submissions made by the petitioner that prescription of such high marks which prevents the student even at the threshold from appearing for the Common Entrance Test has already been considered in the above case and rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 158 - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Etc. Etc vs Adhiyaman Educational & Research ... on 24 March, 1995

When there are more applicants than the available situations/seats, the State authority is not prevented from laying down higher standards or qualifications than those laid down by the Centre or the Central authority to short-list the applicants. When the State authority does so, it does not encroach upon Entry 66 of the Union List or make a law which is repugnant to the Central law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 491 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Chithra Ghosh & Another vs Union Of India And Others on 25 April, 1969

In the same judgment, there is reference to Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India , where it was the Central Government which was running the college and it was held by the Supreme Court in that case that the decision as from what sources admission will be made and to lay down the criteria for eligibility is a question of policy and if Page 2509 the sources are properly classified, it is not for the Courts to interfere with the manner and method of making the classification.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 81 - A N Grover - Full Document
1