Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.27 seconds)Tma Pai Foundation vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 1993
In the light of directions issued by the Supreme Court dated 31-10-2002 in WP(C) No. 317 of 1993 (TMA Pai Foundation case) the State Government framed the rules in G.O. Ms. No. 488 dated 5-9-2003. As per Rule 4(ii) 25% of the sanctioned intake of the seats are to be filled up through a common counselling by a committee of managements of the colleges/ institutions to be constituted as per the schedule prescribed by the Competent Authority or if the institution concerned or management committee so desire, by the committee of admissions constituted by Competent Authority. The seats shall be filled up basing on merit in the common entrance test (EAMCET) held by the State for that year and with candidates who have applied to the committee constituted by colleges/institutions concerned for admission by following the rules of reservation. Competent Authority as defined under Rule 2(ii) means the Vice-Chancellor, NTR University of Health Sciences, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, whereas Committee for Admissions was defined in Section 2(iii) which means the Committee nominated by the Competent Authority to select and make allotment of candidates to Professional Institutions offering Medical and Dental Courses in the State for Admissions in accordance with the provisions laid down in the rules. The procedure for filling up of 25% of the Management Seats in Category-B has been envisaged under Rule 5(ii). As per the procedure, the seats shall be filled up by the committee constituted by the Managements of all the private un-aided non-minority professional colleges/ institutions as per the rules laid down or if the institutions or management committee so desire, by the committee of admissions constituted by the Competent Authority. The procedure of admissions was contemplated under Rule 6(B). All the admissions to Category-B seats shall be filled up by the committee of the managements in a transparent manner from among the students who have passed EAMCET based on merit therein and have applied to the committee constituted by the institutions/colleges concerned for admissions and by duly following Rules of Reservation applicable in the State. The managements of private Un-aided Non-minority Professional Institutions shall have to complete the process of admissions within the time frame following such procedure as prescribed by the Competent Authority for making admissions into the Category-B seats of all the Private Medical and Dental Colleges. The Committee of Management will function at a convenient place and shall complete the admission process within stipulated date as notified by the NTR University of Health Sciences.
Islamic Academy Of Education And ... vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 14 August, 2003
The time schedule approved by the Government of India was also placed before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, , in which the Supreme Court also expressed its concern on strict adherence to the time stipulation for completion of admissions in the MBBS Course in each college. The MCI communicated the same through its letter dated 27-8-2003 and brought to the notice of all concerned the steps to be taken as expeditiously as possible so that all the admissions in the medicine courses are completed not later than 30th September, 2003 and MCI shall be constrained to take necessary action in accordance with law against all those colleges who fail to commence the teaching in the medical courses for the academic session 2003-04 and who also fail to complete the academic process in totality for the academic session 2003-04 before 30th September, 2003. In view of regulations framed for completion of admission process before 30-9-2003, the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O. Ms. No. 488 dated 5-9-2003, in supercession of the Andhra Pradesh Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission into Under Graduate Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1983 issued in G.O. Ms. No. 184, Education dated 20-8-1993 and G.O. Ms. No. 225 HM&FW (E12) Department, dated 16-6-2001, framed rules for admission into under graduate professional courses in Medical and Dental in Un-aided Non-Minority Professional Institutions in the State known as Andhra Pradesh Un-aided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Regulation of Admissions into Undergraduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules, 2003 ('the rules' for short). Some of the rules, which are relevant to decide the issue involved in the writ petitions, may briefly be stated as under:
State Of Kerala vs Kumari T. P. Roshana & Anr on 17 January, 1979
12. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 23584 of 2003 contends that by permitting new colleges 125 seats were surrendered by the petitioners' colleges to be filled up by the University in Category-B and the manner in which the seats were filled up by the University clearly shows that the same was not transparent. Six students Sl.Nos. 1412, 1452, 1521, 1585 and 1089 were not admitted though they are eligible and no information is available about the said seats. Once the schedule fixed is sancrosanct, the same could not be proceeded, by virtue of stay granted by the Supreme Court and the admission have to be made as per the rules issued in G.O. Ms. No. 488. Since the merit is being sacrificed, the entire selection has to be set aside and admissions should be made on merit by following rule of reservation. Schedule fixed for admission does not acquire the status of regulation as held by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. T.P. Roshana, .
J.K. Cotton Spg. And Wvg Mills Co. ... vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 27 July, 1990
22. As rightly pointed out by Sri N.Ramesh Ranganathan, learned Additional Advocate General that proviso to Clause (h) is extensive but restricted the right of management to fill up vacant seats. Clause (h) cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read as a whole including the proviso. As per the ratio laid down in J.K.C.S.& W. Mills's case (supra) Raj Singh's case (supra) Dinesh Lchandra's case (supra) and Sundarammareddi's case (supra).
Shri Umed vs Raj Singh & Ors on 28 August, 1974
22. As rightly pointed out by Sri N.Ramesh Ranganathan, learned Additional Advocate General that proviso to Clause (h) is extensive but restricted the right of management to fill up vacant seats. Clause (h) cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read as a whole including the proviso. As per the ratio laid down in J.K.C.S.& W. Mills's case (supra) Raj Singh's case (supra) Dinesh Lchandra's case (supra) and Sundarammareddi's case (supra).
Dinesh Chandra Sangma vs State Of Assam & Ors on 5 October, 1977
22. As rightly pointed out by Sri N.Ramesh Ranganathan, learned Additional Advocate General that proviso to Clause (h) is extensive but restricted the right of management to fill up vacant seats. Clause (h) cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read as a whole including the proviso. As per the ratio laid down in J.K.C.S.& W. Mills's case (supra) Raj Singh's case (supra) Dinesh Lchandra's case (supra) and Sundarammareddi's case (supra).
Nelluru Sundararamareddi And Ors. vs State Of Andhra (Now Andhra Pradesh) And ... on 14 October, 1958
22. As rightly pointed out by Sri N.Ramesh Ranganathan, learned Additional Advocate General that proviso to Clause (h) is extensive but restricted the right of management to fill up vacant seats. Clause (h) cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read as a whole including the proviso. As per the ratio laid down in J.K.C.S.& W. Mills's case (supra) Raj Singh's case (supra) Dinesh Lchandra's case (supra) and Sundarammareddi's case (supra).
Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs Additional Member, Board Of Revenue, ... on 19 October, 1962
25. Having realized that the admissions made by the petitioner's colleges are in violation of rules, Mr. C.Kodandaram, Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No. 22151 of 2003 in his reply contends that learned Senior Counsel Sri K.N. Bhat who appeared on his behalf is not justified in giving up the relief claimed i.e., "declaring the action of the 4th and 5th respondents in shifting the students of the petitioner college admitted under Category-B for the AY 2003-04 to newly permitted colleges by re-doing the counselling on 30-9-2003 as illegal, arbitrary" is devoid of merit for consideration. It is unethical and unfair to a Counsel to find fault with the Senior Counsel in his absence and contend that he is not justified in giving up such grounds raised in the writ petition. The Senior Counsel was justified in giving up such contention for the reason that none of the new colleges who admitted the students or the students who were earlier given provisional admission by the petitioners' colleges are impleaded as parties. Equally, the contention that since the relief is claimed against NTR University, they are not necessary parties and reliance placed on the ratio laid down in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, , G.M., South Central Railway v. A.V.R. Siddantti, , cannot be countenanced. The ratio laid down in the above cases is misplaced to the facts of the present case for the simple reason if the said relief is granted the students who are admitted into Category-B seats necessarily have to pay fee more than Rs. 11 lakhs but if the same candidate who can secure a free seat as per the order of merit in the newly established colleges is not permitted to take admission in free seat, a candidate who secured below rank to him was allowed free seat, the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In view of the same, the University is justified in permitting such students to seek admission into free seats. In the absence of those students and the colleges impleaded as parties, the petitioners are not entitled for the first relief claimed in W.P. No. 22151 of 2003, which was rightly given up by the Senior Counsel, and it is not open to the Counsel to make any submission on the same. In view of the same, irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is all the admissions which were made by the petitioners' colleges in the vacant seats are not in consonance with the rules made in G.O. Ms. No. 488 dated 5-9-2003 and the University is justified in not approving such admissions. The point No. 1 is accordingly answered.
The General Manager, South Central ... vs A.V.R. Siddhanti And Ors. on 1 September, 1971
25. Having realized that the admissions made by the petitioner's colleges are in violation of rules, Mr. C.Kodandaram, Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No. 22151 of 2003 in his reply contends that learned Senior Counsel Sri K.N. Bhat who appeared on his behalf is not justified in giving up the relief claimed i.e., "declaring the action of the 4th and 5th respondents in shifting the students of the petitioner college admitted under Category-B for the AY 2003-04 to newly permitted colleges by re-doing the counselling on 30-9-2003 as illegal, arbitrary" is devoid of merit for consideration. It is unethical and unfair to a Counsel to find fault with the Senior Counsel in his absence and contend that he is not justified in giving up such grounds raised in the writ petition. The Senior Counsel was justified in giving up such contention for the reason that none of the new colleges who admitted the students or the students who were earlier given provisional admission by the petitioners' colleges are impleaded as parties. Equally, the contention that since the relief is claimed against NTR University, they are not necessary parties and reliance placed on the ratio laid down in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, , G.M., South Central Railway v. A.V.R. Siddantti, , cannot be countenanced. The ratio laid down in the above cases is misplaced to the facts of the present case for the simple reason if the said relief is granted the students who are admitted into Category-B seats necessarily have to pay fee more than Rs. 11 lakhs but if the same candidate who can secure a free seat as per the order of merit in the newly established colleges is not permitted to take admission in free seat, a candidate who secured below rank to him was allowed free seat, the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In view of the same, the University is justified in permitting such students to seek admission into free seats. In the absence of those students and the colleges impleaded as parties, the petitioners are not entitled for the first relief claimed in W.P. No. 22151 of 2003, which was rightly given up by the Senior Counsel, and it is not open to the Counsel to make any submission on the same. In view of the same, irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is all the admissions which were made by the petitioners' colleges in the vacant seats are not in consonance with the rules made in G.O. Ms. No. 488 dated 5-9-2003 and the University is justified in not approving such admissions. The point No. 1 is accordingly answered.