Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology Vs. State Board of Technology and ors.

Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology vs State Board of Technology and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Sep 02, 1986
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/645276

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Supreme Court of India
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 10705-06 of 1986
Subject
Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- [R.S. Pathak and; Ranganath Misra, JJ.] -- Universities — Admission — High Court's order directing admission of two candidates challenged — Supreme Court's interference not called for — Admission subject to adjudication of rights of admission to be decided by High Court -- The learned coun...

Key legal issue
Constitution

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology

Respondent

State Board of Technology and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
1986Supp(1)SCC569

Excerpt

- [r.s. pathak and; ranganath misra, jj.] -- universities - admission - high court's order directing admission of two candidates challenged - supreme court's interference not called for - admission subject to adjudication of rights of admission to be decided by high court -- the learned counsel states that the petitioner is extremely apprehensive of the consequences which will result from compliance with the order of the high court directing admission of the two candidates and the learned counsel has strenuously contended that respondents 2 and 3 are not qualified at all for admission.r.s. pathak and; ranganath misra, jj.1. we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. the learned counsel states that the petitioner is extremely apprehensive of the consequences which will result from compliance with the order of the high court directing admission of the two candidates and the learned counsel has strenuously contended that respondents 2 and 3 are not qualified at all for admission. it seems to us that this is a question which is more appropriate for the consideration of the high court itself as the writ petition is pending before it. we do not propose to interfere at this stage and, therefore, reject these special leave petitions. we make it clear, however, that the respondents 2 and 3, whose admission has been directed by the high court, will be admitted subject to the adjudication of their rights of admission when decided in the writ petition. their admission at this stage will not confer any further right to continue in the institution greater than that which they enjoy under prospectus. the high court will consider the feasibility of disposing of the writ petition early, if possible, before the end of september 1986.

Full Judgment

R.S. Pathak and; Ranganath Misra, JJ.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. The learned counsel states that the petitioner is extremely apprehensive of the consequences which will result from compliance with the order of the High Court directing admission of the two candidates and the learned counsel has strenuously contended that Respondents 2 and 3 are not qualified at all for admission. It seems to us that this is a question which is more appropriate for the consideration of the High Court itself as the writ petition is pending before it. We do not propose to interfere at this stage and, therefore, reject these special leave petitions. We make it clear, however, that the Respondents 2 and 3, whose admission has been directed by the High Court, will be admitted subject to the adjudication of their rights of admission when decided in the writ petition. Their admission at this stage will not confer any further right to continue in the institution greater than that which they enjoy under prospectus. The High Court will consider the feasibility of disposing of the writ petition early, if possible, before the end of September 1986.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial