Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MALLIKARJUNA MUDHAGAL NAGAPPA AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Decided
4 September 2000
Judges listed
M. JAGANNADHA RAO (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 102 · 2000 INSC 428
Also cited as
  • AIR 2000 SC 2976 (11 citing judgments)
  • (2000) 7 SCC 238 (7 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

The maximum intake of the institution is 30 students per section. The institution has two sections. The maximum number that can be admitted is 60. The petitioners before us are the extra 15 students who were admitted, the total being 75 students. In the High Court, the students and the institution had filed a joint writ petition and failed. Hence the 15 students also have filed the S.L.P.

p. 102, margin F

We are not impressed by the fact that the students are before us challenging the orders of the department that they cannot be permitted to take the examination. If their admission was not valid and was beyond the permitted quota of 60, we cannot help the petitioners.

p. 102, margin G

Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench were absolutely right in applying the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Renuka Sing/a, AIR (1994) SC 59 (para 8) and State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, AIR (1992) SC 1926 and in declaring that this admission was illegal. The relevant passages of the above said judgments are as follows:

p. 103, margin A

State of Punjab v. Renuka Sing/a, AIR 1994 SC 59.

p. 103, margin B

"The admission in Medical Course throughout India is governed by different statutory provisions including regulations framed under different Acts. During last several years efforts have been made to regulate the admissions to the different medical institutions, in order to achieve academic excellence. But, at the same time, a counter attempt is also apparent and discernible, by which the candidates, who are not able to get admissions against the seats fixed by different statutory authorities, file writ applications and interim or final directions are given to admit such petitioners. We fail to appreciate as to how the High Court or this Court can be generous or liberal in issuing such directions which in substance amount to directing the authorities concerned to violate their own statutory rules and regulations in respect of admissions of students". State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, AIR (1992) SC 1926.

p. 103, margin B

"Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education. The directions to the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of the rule of law, a breeding source for indiscipline, The High Court, therefore, committed manifest error in law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the appellants to permit the students to

p. 103, margin E

appear for the examination etc.".

p. 103, margin E

We respectfully agree with the view expressed m the above said judgments.

p. 103, margin E

The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed accordingly. T.N.A. Petitions dismissed.

p. 103, margin G