Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.35 seconds)Section 3 in The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 [Entire Act]
D. P. Joshi vs The State Of Madhya Bharat Andanother on 27 January, 1955
73. After referring to earlier decisions rendered in
D.P.Joshi (supra) and Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra), it was
held that it is permissible to lay down the essential
educational requirements, residential/domicile in a
particular State in respect of admission to basic courses,
namely MBBS, BDS and Ayurvedic. It was further held that
object of providing reservation is that incumbent must
serve the concerned State for the emancipation of the
educational standards of the people who are residing in a
particular State.
Section 95 in The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 [Entire Act]
Kumari N. Vasundara vs State Of Mysore & Anr on 15 April, 1971
70. After taking note of the decisions of the Supreme
Court in D.P.Joshi (supra) and N.Vasundara v. State of
Mysore 13, it was held that residence requirement in a State
for admission to MBBS course cannot be termed as
irrational and irrelevant and can be introduced as a
condition for admission without violating the mandate of
equality of opportunity contained in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Thus, it was concluded that certain
percentage of reservation on the basis of residence
requirement may legitimately be made to equalise the
13
(1971) 2 SCC 22
50
opportunities for medical admission on a broader basis and
to bring about real and not formal, actual and not mere
legal, equality.
Meenakshi Malik vs University Of Delhi & Ors on 1 May, 1989
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
Meenakshi Malik (supra), it is directed that the petitioner
in W.P.No.22658 of 2024 shall be treated as local
candidate and if she is otherwise eligible, shall be admitted
to MBBS/BDS course as per the eligibility.
Union Of India And Ors vs Dudh Nath Prasad on 4 January, 2000
In support of the aforesaid submission, learned
4
(1989) 3 SCC 112
32
Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dudh Nath Prasad 5.
Dr. Pradeep Jain Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 22 June, 1984
74. Thus, on perusal of decisions of the Supreme Court
in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra), Anant Madaan (supra) and
Rajdeep Ghosh (supra), it is axiomatic that the ratio of the
aforesaid decisions is that it is permissible to lay down the
requirement of residence or the domicile in a particular
State for admission to MBBS/BDS course. However, it is
not open to the State to make wholesale reservations on
54
the basis of domicile, residence and institutional
preferences. Such a reservation, however, cannot exceed
the outer limit of 70% of total seats by taking into account
other reservations validly made.
Kulbhushan Kumar & Co. vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 23 August, 1983
In support of his submissions,
learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of
5
(2000) 2 SCC 20
6
(1984) 3 SCC 654
33
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulbhushan Kumar
and Company v. State of Punjab 7 and Indo Swiss Time
Limited v. Umrao 8.
Indo Swiss Time Limited vs Umrao And Ors. on 23 February, 1981
In support of his submissions,
learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of
5
(2000) 2 SCC 20
6
(1984) 3 SCC 654
33
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulbhushan Kumar
and Company v. State of Punjab 7 and Indo Swiss Time
Limited v. Umrao 8.