SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1963 Supreme(Ker) 192

C.A.VAIDIALINGAM
R. Jacob Mathew – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent


Advocates:
O P. 1266/1963 :
G. Viswanatha Iyer, for Petitioner; Advocate General, for Respondents 1 and 2; K.V. Surianarayana Iyer and. C.M. Devan, for Respondents 3 and 4. O. P. 1271/63:
T.K. Narayana Pillai, N. Govindan Nair and M. Chandrasekharan, for Petitioner; Advocate General, for Respondents Nos. 1 to 8; Thayyil K. Vasudevan, for Respondent 9.
O. P. 1290/63.
S. Easwata Iyer and L. Gopalakrishnan Potti, for Petitioner; Advocate General, for Respondents. O. P. 1294/63:
P.K. Subramonia Iyer and P. Ramanarayanan, for Petitioner; Advocate General, for Respondent No. 1.
O. P. 1360/63.
T.R. Achutha Warrier, for Petitioner; Advocate-General, for Respondents.
O. P. 1407/63
P.H. Sankaranarayana Iyer, for Petitioner; Government Pleader, for Respondents. .

JUDGMENT :- In these writ petitions, the respective writ petitioners dispute, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the principles laid down by the State Government regarding admissions to the Medical and Engineering Colleges in the State.

2. The order, the validity of which is challenged in these proceedings, is Ext. R-1, dated 7th June 1963, in O. P. No. 1266/1963, which, it is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Advocate General appearing for the State, governs the matter of admissions to these institutions. According to the petitioners, but for the reservations made in the impugned order, they would have been entitled to admission in respect of the colleges for which they had applied. According to them, as a result of the reservations made by the said order, students who have obtained lesser percentage of marks have been admitted; and the petitioners, notwithstanding the fact that they have got higher number of marks, have not been admitted.

3. The short contention that is raised on behalf of these petitioners, is that the order under attack, which has denied them the facility of admission in the respective colleges, is void under Art





































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top