Allahabad High Court said that the convicts are not in a position to say that they were prejudiced in any manner by common FIR, one charge sheet and same charge for all three convicts and one trial.
Madras High Court without cancelling the seat of the student, directed the respondents to take necessary action based on the declaration that the student had obtained a seat through a false declaration.
The petitioner cannot take advantage of, or refuge under, the error that has crept into the Admission Form available on the website. Such a mistake on the part of the respondent-university would not clothe the petitioner with any legal right.
Kerala High Court directed the law college Principal to consider petitioner's admission to 5-year LL.B. course, disqualified on the ground of academic qualification. The Bar Council of India recently updated qualification for admission to 5-year LL.B. course allowing students of 3-year Diploma/Polytechnic courses.
The rights of a child to education have to be balanced with the rights of the school under the DSER, 1973. If the petitioner is unable to pay the fees of the school, the petitioner certainly does not have a right to continue education in the school in question. However, the petitioner cannot be tormented in this manner in the middle of the academic session.
The Delhi High Court held that belated admission in a particular academic year would be totally dehors the scheme of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 and would be counterproductive to the very purpose of reserving seats for children belonging to the EWS category.
Justice CD Singh echoed Swami Vivekananda’s words that “Now if the mountain does not come to Mohammed, Mohammed must go to the mountain. If the poor boy cannot come to education, education must go to him.”
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by a father of a student (‘petitioner’) challenging the validity and constitutionality of a Circular
Digitization is the road ahead. It should lead to empowerment and not deprivation. The “ifs” haunt me. What can the court do in such circumstances when the student is not at fault?
Reported by Chiranjeev Singh Marwah
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ., dismissed a Special Appeal which assailed the dismissal
Supreme Court: In a relief to students seeking admission in AIIMS Institutes, the bench of L. Nageswara Rao and AS Bopanna, JJ
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai*, JJ., held that the permission granted to start Post Graduate
Supreme Court: In the issue relating to the reservation of 50% Super Specialty seats for in-service candidates in Government Medical Colleges in
Calcutta High Court: Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. decided on a petition which was filed being aggrieved by a notice cancelling a provisional eligibility
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Sujoy Paul and Arun Kumar Sharma, JJ., quashed the National Medical Commission’s decision rejecting
Kerala High Court: P.B.Suresh Kumar, J., held that the requirement for Medical students who had studied abroad to undergo CRRI for obtaining
“Though we have all the sympathies with the students, we will not be in a position to do anything to protect the admissions, which were done in a patently illegal manner.”
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of R.D. Dhanuka and R.I. Chagla, JJ., addressed a petition revolving around the Right to Education
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of L. Nageswara Rao and Krishna Murari, JJ., dismissed the instant petition for grant of permission