Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.49 seconds)
Cwp No.931/2016 vs Of on 10 May, 2016 cites

Ashish Ranjan vs Union Of India . on 18 January, 2016

26. The Apex Court itself had prescribed the 1st Round of Counselling to be held between 4th April to 15th April. The State chose to hold it on 12.4.2016. It could not have cancelled the same and rescheduled it for a date beyond the period prescribed in Ashish Ranjan (supra). Also, it could not have arbitrarily and unilaterally cancelled the merit list. Neither any notice stood issued, nor consent of the selected candidates obtained prior thereto. Their right, valuable indeed, was sought to be taken away. Hence, the action of the State in doing so is illegal and arbitrary.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 102 - Full Document

Asha vs B.D.Sharma University Of Health ... on 10 July, 2012

decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and others, (2012) 7 SCC 389; Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh & others, (2012) 7 SCC 433; Chandigarh Administration & another of v. Jasmine Kaur & others, (2014) 10 SCC 521; Ashish Ranjan (supra); and the latest decision of this Court in Dr. rt Disha Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh & others and connected matters, 2015(1) Him L.R. (DB 138).
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 118 - S Kumar - Full Document

Priya Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors on 8 May, 2012

petitioner(s) for the reasons stated above, yet this Court cannot ignore the lapses on the part of the official respondents, who have acted in the most callous and negligent manner in carrying out the admissions little realizing that the career of more meritorious students has been jeopardized without adhering to the rule of merit that too in violation of its own sacred prospectus. It was on account of the corrective of measures and adherence to rule being thwarted by motivated action on the part of the authorities concerned which had led to manifold increase in arbitrary admissions rtwhereby the repeated defaults had resulted in generating more and more litigation with the passage of time and the desire to curb these incidents of disobedience that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with cases relating to admissions had issued directions in rem for their strict compliance without demur and default by all concerned in Priya Gupta's case (supra). Therefore, the respondent No.1 is directed to hold an inquiry and fix responsibility against the erring official(s) and submit its report to this Court by 31st December, 2014.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 278 - S Kumar - Full Document

Dr Fraz Naseem vs Union Of India Represented By Secretary on 2 July, 2014

Writ Petition (Civil) No.433 of 2013, titled as Fraz Naseem v. Union of India & others, so decided by the Apex Court, it was observed that strict adherence to the time schedule is a matter of repeated controversy and of consistently, the Courts have opined that schedule is sacrosanct and like the rule of merit all stakeholders, and in rt including the authorities concerned should adhere to it no circumstances permit its violation, for interference with the same gives rise to dual problem.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 25 - Full Document
1   2 Next