Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.42 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
Even in the recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1995(8) JT 65, in the concurrent opinion given by His Lordship Justice Mr. B.L. Hansaria, it is stated that even the High Court has power to do "complete justice" even if there is no expressed provision under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which specifically confers the power of doing complete justice on the Supreme Court. His Lordship has taken the view that if such power is available to the Apex Court under Article 142, such power to do complete justice between the parties must be read in the power conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and if such power is not read, a very large percentage of litigants are not in a position to approach to the Apex Court. His Lordship, however, observed that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no grounds to think that the High Courts have not to do complete justice and if moulding of relief would do complete justice between the parties, the same cannot be ordered. Court thinks that absence of provision like Article 142 is not material at all and power to do complete justice inheres in every Court not to speak of a Court of plenary jurisdiction like High Court. Undoubtedly, power of the High Court is not as wide as that of the Supreme Court under Article 142. Therefore, though the Courts of law may adopt the approach of minimal interference in the matter of admittance to educational courses, it shall have to be kept in mind that when a meritorious student is being denied admission not on any fault on his/her part but because of two different views held by the Principal of Government Akhandanand Ayurvedic College at Ahmedabad - respondent No. 1 and the Dean, Institute of Post Graduate Studies, Gujarat Ayurvedic University - second respondent and also because of a situation of impossibility having been created for the student by not supplying her the forms for admission upto the last date of acceptance of the form, the Court of law shall not and in my opinion must not find itself helpless but it must strive to do complete justice any manner by which least harm is caused to the other parties.
Dr Santosh Kumari (Mrs) vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 November, 1994
8. However, slightly different note is sounded by a very recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) S. Santosh Kumari v. Union of India reported in 1994(7) JT 565, where the Division of the Apex Court laid stress on merits for admission to medical education course and held that allotment of seats in medical education should go according to merit and not depend upon who comes to Court and who does not. The Court found that the matter is one of principle and should not depend upon who comes to the Court. A more deserving candidate may not have the means to approach the Court. The appellant before the Supreme Court got admission to M S. (Gynecology and Obstretics) in the Medical College at Jaipur, in the All India merit quota, for the academic year 1993-94. 25 per cent of the available seats in the post-graudate medical courses were reserved for being filled from among the candidates allotted by Director General of Health Services on the basis of an All India Examination keeping in view the preferences indicated by each candidate. According to the order of the Apex Court, any seat remaining unfilled on the prescribed date should be surrendered to the State quota. The third respondent appeared in the All India Examination expressing her first preference for Jaipur Medical College and for the speciality of Gynecology and Obstretics. She also sought admission on the State quota whereas the appellant applied for a seat only under the State quota. In the All India Examination, the third respondent was assigned the merit ranking at 1816 and therefore, she could not be given admission in M.S. (Obstretics and Gynecology) Degree course. Four other candidates above her in the merit list were allotted seats. One of the candidates so allotted to degree course in Obstretics and Gynecology in Jaipur College did not join within the prescribed date, with the result, one seat remained unfilled. As per the Order of the Apex Court, said seat was to be surrendered to the State quota and accordingly the appellant got admission. Thereupon, the third respondent filed petition in the Rajasthan High Court seeking admission against the vacant seat. It was dismissed by the learned single Judge. The matter was carried in Appeal to the Division Bench which allowed the Appeal in part and directed that the third respondent should be admitted and that seat could not have been surrendered to the State quota. This decision of the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court was upturned by the Division Bench of Apex Court and the principle of law aforesaid was laid down. This decision, therefore, laid stress on merit of the student and it held that once the seat was rightfully surrendered to State quota, the meritorious student from the State quota having got admission, his admission cannot be disturbed. Though the decision has no direct impact or effect on this case, it can be said that the Apex Court duly emphasised the fact that in the higher education the merit which should prevail and nothing else.
Shri Krishnan vs The Kurukshetra University, ... on 17 November, 1975
9. To counter the aforesaid propositions of law, more particularly about the approach of non-interference by the Courts of law in the matter of admission to educational course, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to the case of Shri Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University , where three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was dealing with the case of a candidate (student) who was allowed to appear in examination - and whose admission to examination was later on withdrawn by the University on the ground that while giving admission to the student, infirmity which disentitled him to admission was not noticed. The Apex Court took the view that if the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the candidate to appear in the Examination, then by force of the University Statute the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidate. Based on the similarity of fact situation obtaining before the Apex Court, in the facts of the present case, it was submitted very strenuously before this Court that if, despite late submission of forms by the petitioner, the Admission Committee of the University permitted the petitioner to appear in the Entrance Examination held on 29th of June, 1995, and yet on merit the petitioner was posted at Serial No. 1 in the waiting list, admission to M.D. (Ayurved) Course could not have been denied to her on the ground that she was late in submitting the admission form beyond the date fixed, i.e., 22nd of May, 1995. On facts, the decision of the Apex Court in this case is said to be applicable on all force and it is urged before this Court that the petitioner must succeed on the ratio decidendi of this decision of the Apex Court.
Dr Pramod Kumar Joshi vs Medical Council Of India And Ors. on 19 February, 1991
In the case of Dr. Pramod Kumar Joshy v. Medical Council of India even the Apex Court having found and accepted that refusal of admission to the petitioner to Diploma Course in Paediatrics was contrary to the regulations framed by Indian Medical Council, noted its helplessness in granting any substantive relief as the academic sessions was almost complete and it was felt that it would not be proper to allow him admission belatedly and disturb others who have already been admitted and have been undergoing the course. The observation of the Apex Court in the penultimate line of its order to the effect "petitioner may look for admission in a future year" would generally prove to be a teasing illusion or promise of unreality to a meritorious student submits the learned Counsel for the petitioner. If a student may look for admission in the subsequent year despite her claim to admission, a Court of law cannot be helpless to grant such student admission in the next year when for no fault of the student admission was denied to her.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sanatan Gauda vs Berhampur University And Ors on 2 April, 1990
10. The petitioner also pressed into service another decision of the Division Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University, . The regulations of the University dealing with admission to Law course prescribed no requirement of any particular marks for post graduate students. The petitioner who passed M.A. Examination with 36% in the aggregate was held to be duly qualified to be admitted to Law course. The University also permitted him to appear in Pre-law and Intermediate Law examinations and he was also admitted to final year course. The University, however, thereafter refused to declare results of examinations on the ground of ineligibility of the petitioner to be admitted to Law course. In the said case, the petitioner was admitted to the Law course and he studied for a period of two years. The petitioner was granted admission card for the Pre-law and Intermediate Law Examinations. He was also admitted to the final year of the course. Only at the stage of declaration of his results of the Pre-law and Intermediate Law Examinations that the University raised the objection of the ineligibility to be admitted to the Law course. By applying the principle of estoppel, the Apex Court compelled the University to declare the results of the appellant and in a concurring judgment, L.M. Sharma, J. held that it was the bounden duty of the University to have scrutinised the matter thoroughly before permitting the appellant to appear at the examination and not having done so it cannot refuse to publish his results. Before the Apex Court also, the Principal who sent the Admission forms assured the University authorities that he had verified the position and that all the candidates were eligible. The forms which are submitted later are also sent by the Principal to the second respondent along with the Junior Clerk and according to him excepting the fact that the candidates have not completed the requisite internship (which was criteria of eligibility) all candidates were eligible for being admitted to Entrance Examination. The Admission Committee also did not deny admission to her but for reasons to which reference will be made hereafter, permitted the petitioner to appear at the Extrance Examination which was held on 29th of June 1995 and included her name at Serial No. 1 in the Waiting list. The name of the third respondent appeared at Serial No. 3 in the Waiting list and admittedly the third respondent is admitted to M.D. Ayurvedic Course while petitioner is denied admission on the ground that she has submitted her admission form late beyond the cut off date of 22nd of May, 1995.
The State Of Punjab vs Sodhi Sukhdev Singh on 15 November, 1960
We fail to appreciate as to how the High Court or this Court can be generous or liberal in issuing such directions which in substance amount to directing the authorities concerned to violate their own statutory rules and regulations, in respect of admissions of students. It cannot be disputed that technical education, including medical education, requires infra-structure to cope with the requirement of giving proper education to the students, who are admitted. Taking into consideration the infra-structure, equipment, staff, the limit of the number of admissions is fixed either by the Medical Council of India or Dental Council of India. The High Court cannot isturb that balance between the capacity of the institution and number of admissions, on "compassionate ground". The High Court should be conscious of the fact that in this process they are affecting the education of the students who have already been admitted, against the fixed seats, after a very tough competitive examination. According to us, there does not appear to be any justification on the part of the High Court, in the present case, to direct admission of respondent No. 1 on "compassionate ground" and to issue a flat to create an additional seat which amounts to a direction to violate Section 10A and Section 10B(3) of the Dentists Act referred to above.
1