<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1993 (11) TMI 239 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185066</link>
    <description>Admission to a reserved professional course seat must follow the stated eligibility requirements and the merit-cum-reservation scheme; a candidate who did not claim the reservation in the application form and failed to file the required certificate within time could not be accommodated on compassionate grounds. The candidate who had applied in proper form with the supporting certificate had the superior claim to the vacant reserved seat, and no additional seat could be created for the other candidate. Admission capacity in dental institutions is fixed by statute and may be increased only with prior governmental permission, so a judicial direction to expand intake beyond the sanctioned limit was impermissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:48:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=436737" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (11) TMI 239 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185066</link>
      <description>Admission to a reserved professional course seat must follow the stated eligibility requirements and the merit-cum-reservation scheme; a candidate who did not claim the reservation in the application form and failed to file the required certificate within time could not be accommodated on compassionate grounds. The candidate who had applied in proper form with the supporting certificate had the superior claim to the vacant reserved seat, and no additional seat could be created for the other candidate. Admission capacity in dental institutions is fixed by statute and may be increased only with prior governmental permission, so a judicial direction to expand intake beyond the sanctioned limit was impermissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185066</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>