THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI will hold examination for direct recruitment against 14 vacancies to Delhi Higher Judicial Service on Sunday, the 06th April,2014-Last Date 06.02.2014 13/11/2013: While renewing the term of the appointment of the existing incumbents the State Government is required to consider their past performance and conduct in the light of the recommendations made by the District Judges and the District Magistrates. Therefore, the High Court could not have issued a Mandamus for renewal of the term of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and other similarly situated persons and thereby frustrated the provisions of LR Manual and Section 24 Cr.P.C .- SUPREME COURT. 12 Nov. 2013- Registration of FIR by police in cognizable offence is must and action must be taken against officials for not lodging a case on the complaint filed in such offences.- Supreme Court.(PTI) 09/11/2013: Supreme Court stayed Gauhati High Court order that declared CBI as unconstitutional. 06-11-2013 -"while we decline to hold and declare that the DSPE Act, 1946, is not a valid piece of legislation, we do hold that the CBI is neither an organ nor a part of the DSPE and the CBI cannot be treated as a ‘police force’ constituted under the DSPE Act, 1946"-GUWAHATI HIGH COURT
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT
Go Back to High Court Judgements
  Date 7/7/2009 12:00:00 AM
     
  Judgement
  Hon. Dilip Gupta, J. This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondent-U.P. Technical University, Lucknow to treat the petitioner as a Scheduled Caste candidate instead of a candidate belonging to the general category. The petitioner had submitted an application form before the U.P. Technical University for appearing at the State Entrance Examination 2009. In the said application form meant for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Female candidates of all categories, the petitioner clearly mentioned that she belonged to the general category. On the basis of the said application submitted by the petitioner, the Admit Card was issued to the petitioner by the U.P. Technical University on 9th April, 2009 mentioning therein that the petitioner is a candidate belonging to the general category. The petitioner appeared at the Entrance Examination as a general category candidate and the result of the petitioner was also declared treating the petitioner a general category candidate. It is after the declaration of the result that the petitioner started claiming that her category should be changed to the Scheduled Caste category. The rank of the petitioner at the said entrance examination is 113129 and in the girls category her rank is 20992. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in all probability she will get admission in some college but if she is treated as a Scheduled Caste candidate, her rank will improve and she will get a better college. The petitioner had sought admission to the B.Tech. Course which is a professional course. In the application form for appearing at the entrance examination, the petitioner was required to indicate the category and the petitioner did indicate the category as general category and the Admit Card was also issued in April, 2009 on that basis. The petitioner, however, kept quiet and appeared in the examination as a general category candidate. It is only after the declaration of the result that the petitioner has now started claiming that her candidature should be treated with the Scheduled Caste candidates. This change cannot be permitted at such a belated stage. It is also not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that her category should be changed to the Scheduled Caste category because the petitioner had made a mistake while filling the application form as in such circumstances the petitioner should have immediately approached the Court after the admit card was issued for appearing at the entrance examination. The petitioner has now approached the Court when the process of calling the candidates for counselling on the basis of the ranks of the respective candidates is in progress. It is, therefore, not possible to grant the relief claimed for by the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.