Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The General Clauses Act, 1897
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Smt. Asha Pandey vs Guru Ghasidas University 55 ... on 28 November, 2018
14.4 Additionally, reliance can be placed upon the ratio
encapsulated in Asha (Supra), and it can be concluded that
having recorded that the petitioners are not at fault and they have
(Downloaded on 14/11/2024 at 10:35:18 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46833] (14 of 20) [CW-17069/2024]
pursued their rights and remedies as expeditiously as possible, the
cut-off date cannot be used as a technical instrument or tool to
deny admission to meritorious students. The relevant extract from
the said ratio is retreated herein below:
S. Krishna Sradha vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Medical ... on 21 August, 2019
14.8 Further, reliance can be placed upon the ratio
enunciated in S. Krishna Sradha (Supra), the relevant extract is
reproduced herein below:
Chhavi Mehrotra (Miss) vs Director General Health Services on 14 January, 1994
It is not only unfortunate but apparently
unfair that the appellant be denied admission.
Though there can be rarest of rare cases or
exceptional circumstances where the
courts may have to mold the relief and
make exception to the cut-off date of
30
t
h
September, but in those cases, the Court
must first return a finding that no fault is
attributable to the candidate, the candidate
has pursued her rights and legal remedies
expeditiously without any delay and that
there is fault on the part of the authorities
and apparent breach of some rules,
regulations and principles in the process of
selection and grant of admission. Where
(Downloaded on 14/11/2024 at 10:35:18 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46833] (15 of 20) [CW-17069/2024]
denial of admission violates the right to equality
and equal treatment of the candidate, it would
be completely unjust and unfair to deny such
exceptional relief to the candidate. [Refer Arti
Sapru and Others v. State of J & K and others
[(1981) 2 SCC 484]; Chavi Mehrotra v. Director
General Health Services [(1994) 2 SCC 370];
and Aravind Kumar Kankane v. State of UP and
Others [(2001) 8 SCC 355].
Arvind Kumar Kankane vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 August, 2001
It is not only unfortunate but apparently
unfair that the appellant be denied admission.
Though there can be rarest of rare cases or
exceptional circumstances where the
courts may have to mold the relief and
make exception to the cut-off date of
30
t
h
September, but in those cases, the Court
must first return a finding that no fault is
attributable to the candidate, the candidate
has pursued her rights and legal remedies
expeditiously without any delay and that
there is fault on the part of the authorities
and apparent breach of some rules,
regulations and principles in the process of
selection and grant of admission. Where
(Downloaded on 14/11/2024 at 10:35:18 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:46833] (15 of 20) [CW-17069/2024]
denial of admission violates the right to equality
and equal treatment of the candidate, it would
be completely unjust and unfair to deny such
exceptional relief to the candidate. [Refer Arti
Sapru and Others v. State of J & K and others
[(1981) 2 SCC 484]; Chavi Mehrotra v. Director
General Health Services [(1994) 2 SCC 370];
and Aravind Kumar Kankane v. State of UP and
Others [(2001) 8 SCC 355].
Dr. Pradeep Jain Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 22 June, 1984
14.5 In Dr. Pradeep Jain Vs. and Ors. v. Union of India
and Ors. reported in (1984) 3 SCC 654 it was categorically
noted that merit alone must be the criteria for admission to MBBS
courses. Hence, the rule of merit should not be defeated at any
cost.
Dolly Chhanda vs Chairman, Jee & Ors on 5 October, 2004
14.6 Upon consideration of the afore-cited ratios this Court is
of the view that consideration of candidate solely on the basis of
merit, un-biasness and transparency in the selection process, are
the ethos of the selection/ admission process. A good college, as
per the merit scored is the fruit that the candidates obtain
resultant to their dedication and aspirations in life and in no
situation the same can be compromised and the rule of merit
should supersede over any other technical instruments.
14.7 Further, this Court deems it apposite to place reliance
upon Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman JEE reported in (2005) 9
SCC 779: