REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

GAGAN DEEP Appellant

V/S

STATE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

CHARANJIT LAL CHOWDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. F N BALSARA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL HABIB MOHAMMAD STATE OF HYDERABAD STATE OF MYSORE VS. ANWAR ALI SARKAR:ANWAR ALI SARKAR [REFERRED TO]
KATHI RANING RAWAT VS. STATE OF SAURASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
LACHMANDAS KEWALRAM VS. STATE OF BOMBAY HABEEB MOHAMIMD [REFERRED TO]
AMEERUNNISSA BEGUM VS. MAHBOOB BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
SYED QASIM RAZVI VS. STATE OF HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRASAD NARAYAN SAHI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
HABEEB MOHAMED PATITIONER VS. STATE OF HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
DWARKA PRASAD LAXMI NARAIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
V M SYED MOHAMMAD AND COMPANY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DHIRENDRA KUMAR VS. SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS TO THE GOV ERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
BUDHAN CHOUDHRY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA DALMIA SHRIYANS PRASAD JAIN JAI DAYAL DALMIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M R BALAJI THE MYSORE STATE CHATHADA VAISH NAYA ASSOCIATION MYSORE ARYA VYSYA MAHASABHA BANGALORE VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
D N CHANCHALA USHA P BHASKAR RAMASUBRAMANYAM SETTY V V SOUDAMINI R JAYASHREE VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. PRADIP TANDON:STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH:STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP JAIN MISS REITA NIRANKARI MEENAKSHI ALKA AGGARWAL SHALINI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP JAIN MISS REITA NIRANKARI MEENAKSHI ALKA AGGARWAL SHALINI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR VS. MOTILAL NEHRU MEDICAL COLLEGE ALLAHABAD [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK SIBAL MISS RITLJ KHANNA VS. PUNJAB UNLVERSRTY:PUNJAB UNIVERSITY [REFERRED TO]
MEENAKSHI MALIK VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
ANANT MADAAN BHARATB DUA NANDITA KALRA SHALINIJAIN VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
NOOKAVARAPU KANAKADURGA DEVI VS. KAKATIYA MEDICAL COLLEGE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We propose to decide this batch of 36 cases by this judgment since the questions involved in all of them are common in nature and learned Counsel for the parties advanced almost similar submissions in support of these questions However, pointed reference would be made to some of cases wherever it is found necessary.

(2.) The Petitioners have challenged the validity of eligibility criteria in the prospectus for the Session 1995 -96 restricting the eligibility only to those candidates who have passed at least two out of three examinations - Middle, Matric and 10+2 from recognised schools and colleges situated in Himachal Pradesh for admission to the first year MBBS/BDS courses in the Indira Gandhi Medical College (MBBS) and Himachal Pradesh Government Dental College and Hospital (BDS) and free seats available in private Medical and Dental Colleges in the State. The Petitioners have stated that they are permanent residents of Himachal Pradesh and are, therefore, bona fide Himachalis defined in the prospectus. However, due to the posting of their parents outside Himachal Pradesh, they had to study in schools and institutions outside the State of Himachal Pradesh. Some of the Petitioners are the children of Defence Services who had to be out of Himachal Pradesh on account of the posting of their fathers at various places in the country.

(3.) Petitioner Moti Lal (C.W.P. No. 825/95) had his education in "Vishesh Kendriya Vidalaya" situated at Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh due to selection in competitive examination conducted by the District Education Officer, Kinnaur. Otherwise, be would have studied in the tribal area of Himachal Pradesh throughout.

Click here to view full judgment.

GAGAN DEEP Vs. STATE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address