N. K. MITRA, S. R. SINGH
BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY, VARANASI – Appellant
Versus
ROHINI SINGH – Respondent
( 1 ) CHALLENGE in the Special appeal on hand is to the correctness of the judgment dated 23-10-98 of the learned Single Judge whereby the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 194 of 1998 instituted by respondent - Ku. Rohini Singh culminated in being allowed post-fixed with the directions to the appellants to give her admission in the one-year M. Ed. Course. The petition was also awarded cost quantified at Rs. 2000. 00.
( 2 ) THE necessary facts as bear on the controversy involved in this appeal are that the petitioner-respondent- Km. Rohini Singh, took entrance test for admission to one-year M. Ed. Course 1997-98 conducted by the appellants. The aforesaid course had seating allocation for 25 students including three supernumerary seats. 50% of the total seats were reserved for Banaras Hindu University students that is to say for students who have been admitted through University Entrance test, B. H. U. and have passed the qualifying examination from the Institute/faculty/ Mahila Mahavidyalay, Banaras Hindu University in the year of the test or one year immediately preceding the test.
( 3 ) OUT of 22 regular seats available for admission in M. Ed. Course 1997-98, six fell
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University
Nidamarti Mahesh Kumar v. State of Maharashtra
Jagdish Saran v. Union of India
Referred to : Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nilaybhai R. Thakore
Mohan Beer Singh Chawla v. Punjab University
Santosh Gowda v. Berhampur University
Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Thukral Anjali
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.