Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.52 seconds)Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors vs Dr. Anupam Gupta Etc on 13 February, 1992
6. Similar view of has been reiterated in Dr. Pramod Kumar Joshi v. Medical Council of India and Ors., (1991) 2 SCC 179; State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta and Ors., 1993 Supp (1) SCC 594. Their Lordships had given the reason that such admission would disturb the course and also work as a handicap to the candidates to achieve the excellence. It was observed that in such cases, the Court must take a pragmatic view of the matter in order to maintain excellence in the courses which had commenced long ago and the schedule was likely to be completed. Where the students did not have the opportunity to complete the full course, such a direction should not be issued.
State Of Punjab vs Renuka Singla on 26 November, 1993
"The admission in medical course throughout India is governed by different statutory provisions, including regulations framed under different Acts. During last several years efforts have been made to regulate the admissions to the different medical institutions, in order to achieve academic excellence. But, at the same time, a counter-attempt is also apparent discernible, by which the candidates, who are not able to get admissions against the seats fixed by different statutory authorities, file writ applications and interim or final directions are given to admit such petitioners. 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 infrastructure to cope with the requirement of giving proper education to the students, who are admitted. Taking into consideration the infrastructure, 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 disturb 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 par of the High Court, in the present case, to direct admission of respondent 1 on "compassionate ground" and to issue a fiat 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."
Shalini vs Kurukshetra University & Anr on 18 January, 2002
9. Petitioners are entitled to take any benefit of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shalini v. Kurukshetra University and Anr., (2002) 2 SCC 270; Sadanand Mishra v. Forest Research Institute and Ors., (2002) 1 UPLBEC 922; and of this Court in Banaras Hindu University and Anr. v. K. Rohini Singh, (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1113, for the reason that in these cases it has been held that where the educational institution is at fault, it cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own mistake, and admission can be given at a later stage.
Banaras Hindu University And Another vs Km. Rohini Singh on 1 February, 2000
9. Petitioners are entitled to take any benefit of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shalini v. Kurukshetra University and Anr., (2002) 2 SCC 270; Sadanand Mishra v. Forest Research Institute and Ors., (2002) 1 UPLBEC 922; and of this Court in Banaras Hindu University and Anr. v. K. Rohini Singh, (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1113, for the reason that in these cases it has been held that where the educational institution is at fault, it cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own mistake, and admission can be given at a later stage.
G.S. Lamba & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 March, 1985
The said view stands fortified by the earlier judgments of the Apex Court in G.S. Lamba and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1019; Narender Chadha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1986 SC 638; Jose v. Alice and Anr., (1996) 6 SCC 342; and T. Srinivasan v. Mrs. T. Varalakshmi, (1998) 3 SCC 112.
Narender Chadha & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 February, 1986
The said view stands fortified by the earlier judgments of the Apex Court in G.S. Lamba and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1019; Narender Chadha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1986 SC 638; Jose v. Alice and Anr., (1996) 6 SCC 342; and T. Srinivasan v. Mrs. T. Varalakshmi, (1998) 3 SCC 112.
Jose vs Alice & Anr on 18 September, 1996
The said view stands fortified by the earlier judgments of the Apex Court in G.S. Lamba and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1019; Narender Chadha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1986 SC 638; Jose v. Alice and Anr., (1996) 6 SCC 342; and T. Srinivasan v. Mrs. T. Varalakshmi, (1998) 3 SCC 112.
T. Srinivasan vs T. Varalakshmi (Mrs) on 22 January, 1998
The said view stands fortified by the earlier judgments of the Apex Court in G.S. Lamba and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1019; Narender Chadha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1986 SC 638; Jose v. Alice and Anr., (1996) 6 SCC 342; and T. Srinivasan v. Mrs. T. Varalakshmi, (1998) 3 SCC 112.