Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.54 seconds)P.A. Inamdar & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 August, 2005
In conclusion, learned Counsel representing Association of private unaided colleges in Karnataka submits that the decision in Islamic Academy and the directions made therein go far beyond the law laid down by the larger Bench in Pai Foundation. The Bench in Islamic Academy virtually reviewed the larger Bench decision in Pai Foundation in guise of implementation of the said decision and on the basis of later developments. In Islamic Academy, the Bench accepted that there could be no rigid fee structure fixed by the government for private institutions. An institute should have the freedom to fix its own fee structure for day-to-day running of the institute and to generate funds for its further growth. Only capitation and diversion of profits and surplus of the institute to any other business or enterprise was prohibited. It is submitted that Islamic Academy contrary to the legal position explained in Pai Foundation, could not set up in each State permanent committees headed by retired High Court Judges with the power to decide on the justification of the fee proposed by the institute and propose any other fees. It could also not make the fee fixed by the Committee binding for a period of three years. Learned Counsel submits that once the college infrastructure and hospital facilities attached to the medical college have been approved by the Medical Council of India in accordance with its regulations, the total expenses of college and hospital could be taken into account by the institute to decide upon its own fee structure.
Article 30 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
A. Periakaruppan Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 15 January, 1971
(See : A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu . University-wise distribution of seats has, however, been upheld on the ground that the universities are set up for satisfying the educational needs of different areas where they are set up and those attached to such universities have their ambitions to have training in specialised subject like medicine satisfied through colleges attached to their own universities.
D. N. Chanchala vs State Of Mysore And Ors. Etc.(With ... on 3 May, 1971
(See : D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore . It has been laid down that university-wise preferential treatment may be consistent with the rule of equality of opportunity where it is calculated to correct an imbalance or handicap and permit equality in the larger sense.
Jagdish Saran & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 January, 1980
(See : Jagdish Saran v. Union of India .
M. R. Balaji And Others vs State Of Mysore on 28 September, 1962
28...It has been held by this Court in Balaji's case (supra) that 50 per cent of the seats in educational institutions should be left open to general competition....
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Pradip Tandon & Ors on 19 November, 1974
16. It is also well-settled that even constitutionally permissible reservation cannot go beyond 50% and it is the mandate of Article 14 that 50% of the seats are left open to general competition. Reference may be made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (quoted in State of UP v. Pradip Tandon ), as under:
The Secretary,Malankara Syrian ... vs T.Jose & Ors on 27 November, 2006
We are of the view that judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in T. Jose (supra) does not advance the proposition put forward on behalf of the petitioner.