Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
It can no longer be said that the fixing of cutoff date 31 December as a date beyond which no order of provisional admission can be passed, is a principle which should be regarded as judicially binding, till a hierarchically superior court speaks on it.
The right available under Article 21A of the Constitution or under Section 12 of the RTE Act is only to free and compulsory education till the age of fourteen, not for being provided such education in a particular school.
The present case reflects a tormenting situation where the opulent class is putting in blood, sweat and tears to reap the benefits of EWS reservation at the expense of the economically marginalized candidates. A calculated attempt at subverting the cherished constitutional vision of education for all is under scrutiny in this case.
“Purpose of examination is to screen out best candidates available for job and since petitioner obtained more than minimum required marks, he should have been considered for Stage-II under General Category as his rejection is not based on merit but only on account of document verification.”
“If the construction is completed it will be a fait accompli. The loss will be irreparable. Balance of convenience is in favour of maintaining the status quo with respect to the construction of houses in R5 zone till the final judicial orders are passed.”
Allahabad High Court granted two weeks’ time to UPPSC to file a reply and the candidate one week thereafter to file a rejoinder affidavit
Justice Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi delivered their split verdicts while examining the challenge raised against the Judgment of Rajasthan High Court, dismissing the appeals of the qualified candidates of OBC, EWS category.
The supernumerary seat was created by the respondents on their own and there was no direction for same in the interim order, thus, the caveat in the interim order that no equities would flow in favour of the petitioner, will not come in the way of the petitioner’s continuation against the said seat.
In a case where scholarship amount was denied to an EWS student, the Delhi High Court directed the Ministry of Science and Technology to release the third installment of scholarship amount under the INSPIRE Scheme along with Rs. 50,000 as costs
Supreme Court: In a matter relating to the constitutional validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act whichprovides for 10 percent reservation
Supreme Court: In a detailed judgment, the bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna, JJ has upheld the Constitutional validity of
Supreme Court: Considering the urgent need to commence the process of Counselling, the bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud* and AS Bopanna, JJ,
Madras High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjib Banerjee, CJ and P.D. Audikesavalu, J. while addressing the contempt petition, expressed that, Merely
On July 29, 2021, the Government has announced 27% reservation for the OBCs (Other Backward Classes) and 10% quota for the Economically
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjay Yadav and Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ., dismissed a writ petition which was raised
Jharkhand High Court: In an interesting case Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., had held that the 10% reservation to Economically Weaker Sections cannot
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of S.V. Gangapurwala and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ., directed that the petitioner, belonging to the Maratha caste,
“Education is the passport to the future.” Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula, JJ., while addressing the issue
Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., while addressing the present petition issued directions with regard to the counselling process at the time