Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Geeta v. Vice Chancellor Kshatrapati Shahuji Maharaj & Others - WRIT - C No. 26322 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10383 (4 June 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition has been filed for quashing the advertisement dated 13.4.2007 that had been issued by the Kshatra Pati Sahuji Maharaj Vishwa Vidyalaya Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') in so far as it fixes 50% as the minimum percentage of marks to be obtained by the candidates at the qualifying examination for the purposes of appearing at the B.Ed. Entrance Examination.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the National Council Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as the 'NCTE') had fixed 45% marks to be obtained at the qualifying examination and,  therefore, the University could not have fixed 50% marks in the advertisement.

Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has submitted that NCTE subsequently raised the minimum percentage of marks from 45% to 50% and, therefore, the petitioner is not justified in submitting that the minimum percentage of marks that has been fixed by NCTE is only 45%. He has also placed before the Court the latest norms and standards fixed by the NCTE and clause 3.2.1 clearly provides that the candidates with at least 50% marks are eligible for admission to the programme. He has also placed before the Court the order dated 1.2.2007 issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Higher Education Department-2 which clearly shows that the Rules framed under Section 28(5) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 have been amended accordingly to raise the percentage to 50% and the amendments shall apply to the admission made in the session 2007-2008.

In this view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt/- 4.6.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.