• Writ Petition- For Mandamus To School & College- In High Courts Of Various States

  • Writ Of Mandamus To Schools & Colleges  

    [Under Art.-226 of The Constitution of India, 1950]

    • Mohd. Saad Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia & Others, WP (C) 8293/ 2014, Judgment Dated-09.07.2015, Bench- Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J, Delhi High Court – Cases Referred To & Releied upon- Rajat Goel Vs. Ministry of Human Resource & Development (Government of India) MANU/DE/7235/2011 & Shivam Shresthi Vs. Delhi Technological University MANU/DE/1757/2014.
    • Shivam Shresthi Vs. Delhi Technological University MANU/DE/1757/2014.
    • Priority Admission- University is an autonomous body, entitled to take its own decision in such matters for the purpose of giving reservation / preference in admission and any recommendations of the Government would not bind the University which can take its own view in the matter.- Hridaya Bhushan Vs. Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology MANU/DE/2145/2013.
    • Priority Admission- University being an autonomous body is fully entitled to confine the reservation to a certain category of the recommendees only.- University was within its right to exclude Priority VI and Priority VII and no direction to the respondent University to abide fully by the recommendation of the Rajya Sainik Board could be issued.- These finding came in Appeal (LPA)- Ld. Single Judge’s finding which was impugned in Appeal was interalia, the university could not have on its own restricted the reservation under the defence category till Priority V only, and was bound by the entire recommendation of the Rajya Sainik Board under the Ministry of Defence and hence the university was directed to admit the Petitioner.- Judgment Reference- Sukhanshu Singh Vs. Delhi Technological University, Rajiv sahai Endlaw, J, Delhi High court 2010 SCC Online Delhi 3592 - Though another Division Bench in Shivam Shresthi Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/4959/2012 expressed doubts as to the correctness of the view taken by the Division Bench in Sukhanshu Singh and referred the matter to a Full Bench but before the Full Bench the said petition was withdrawn on 11th September, 2012 and resultantly, as of today, the view of the Division Bench in Sukhanshu Singh holds the field- Judgment- Delhi Technological University Vs. Sukhanshu Singh, Citations- LPA No.786/2010, Judgment Dated-12.11.2010, Division Bench, Delhi High Court.  
    • The Supreme Court, after noticing the “Order of Precedence of Awards” under Regulation 717 of Defence Services Regulations held that even if the High Court was satisfied that the Rule was discriminatory and bad for the reason of not including Shaurya Chakra and other gallantry awards, the only course open to the High Court was to strike the offending Rule and to direct the authorities to re-frame the Rule; however the Court could not have directed inclusion of Shaurya Chakra also therein. It was held that if the Rule had been struck down and re-framed to include other gallantry awards also, others who may be eligible thereunder and who had earlier not applied considering the Rule not applicable to them, would have also competed. - Chandigarh Administration Vs. Manpreet Singh (1992) 1 SCC 380.
All original content on these pages is fingerprinted and certified by Digiprove