Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Supreme Court of India quashed the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for admissions into all medical and dental colleges on 18 July 2013. The apex court ruled that the Medical Council of India cannot conduct a unified examination. [12] According to a 2013 announcement by CBSE, [13] CBSE planned to conduct AIPMT on 4 May 2014. [14]
The Supreme Court later postponed the hearing to 18 July. On 18 July, the Supreme Court ordered the NTA to publish the results of the entire exam, including center and city-wise results, by 12 noon on 20 July, while keeping the identity of the students hidden. The court announced it will resume the hearing on 22 July. [39]
On 15 June 2015 the Supreme Court asked CBSE to re-conduct the AIPMT 2015 Exam within 4 weeks (by 12 July 2015). After a hearing on the pleas of CBSE, Supreme Court had decided to re-conduct exam on 25 July 2015. The exam was conducted safely and successfully across the country on the scheduled date (25 July 2015).
The Supreme Court added to its “teenager term” on Wednesday by agreeing to hear arguments in the fast-moving challenge to the widely bipartisan TikTok ban President Joe Biden signed in April ...
The Supreme Court is holding fast to its ethics procedures in light of a new report raising questions about the extent to which colleges and universities have used campus visits by justices as an ...
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), was an opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether a state university might, consistent with the First Amendment, withhold from student religious publications funding provided to similar secular student publications.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts slammed what he described as “dangerous” talk by some officials about ignoring federal court rulings, using an annual report weeks before President ...
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions.The Court held that a student admissions process that favors "underrepresented minority groups" did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as it took into account other factors evaluated on an individual ...