Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (7.86 seconds)
Documents citing Association Of Medical Super ... vs Union Of India on 19 August, 2019

Ms. Bushra Abdul Aleem vs Government Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2019

(iii) The Apex Court in Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants (supra) at para 19 has mentioned about the rates of fine fixed by some States and by the Central Government in default of compulsory service; in West Bengal fine amount is Rs.30 lakh, period of compulsory service being three years; in Tamil Nadu the fine amount is Rs.50 lakh, the period of compulsory service being two years; for candidates passing out from Armed Forces Medical Colleges, the Central Government has fixed a fine of Rs.25 lakh, period of compulsory service being five years; in Kerala the minimum liquidated damages (ie., fine amount) is Rs.20 lakh, the compulsory service period being one year vide AYISHA BEGUM vs. STATE, LAWS (KER) 2018(3) 105; in Maharashtra the fine amount is Rs.25 lakh, the minimum service period being two years vide VINOD SHANKAR LAL SHARMA vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, LAWS (BOM) 2012 (11) 33 DB; in Gujarat, the fine amount is Rs.20 lakh, the service period being one year; going by these contemporary standards of 1336 several States and of the Central Government, it cannot be gainsaid that the fine amount prescribed by Sec.6 of the impugned Act, ranging between Rs.15 lakh & Rs.30 lakh is arbitrary, unreasonable or disproportionate; the problem of acute shortage of medical service to the rural & disadvantaged masses and a manifest reluctance of medical practitioners to serve them eminently justify the size of fine amount, the intent being both, firstly the deterrence against default of compliance and secondly the recompense to the State for the service lost.
Karnataka High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 5 - K S Dixit - Full Document

Mr.Kushal B.R vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 2024

6.1.3. Insofar as imposition of execution of bonds by the petitioners as a condition for admission to medical colleges is concerned, it would not be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the bond that is executed is in the nature of contract between the parties and they are bound by it. He would contend that identical legislation introduced by the State of Madhya Pradesh did fall for consideration before the Apex Court in Dr. VAIBHAV YAWALKAR v. UNION OF INDIA2 and would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPERSPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA3. He would contend that the petitions are hit by delay and laches and the petitioners have taken admission under the Government quota in the year 2015-16 and have chosen to prefer these writ petitions in the year 2021. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the execution of bonds executed in the year 2015-16, they ought to have called that in question in the year 2015 itself and not after six years. In defense of the allegation that the bonds are executed under an amended rule 2 2019 SCC OnLine MP 5436 3 (2019) 8 SCC 607 134 which is never notified, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that though the amendment to Rule 11 under the 2006 Rules was notified on 08-06-2021, the petitioners were made aware of the notification and, therefore, they cannot contend that merely because the notification is not immediately gazetted it would not affect the validity of the notification since the petitioners were at all times aware that compulsory rural service is a necessity at the time when they exit on completion of MBBS course. For every submission supra, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance upon several judgments and those relevant to the issue would bear consideration in the course of the order.
Karnataka High Court Cites 139 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Dr Niharika H S vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 2024

6.1.3. Insofar as imposition of execution of bonds by the petitioners as a condition for admission to medical colleges is concerned, it would not be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the bond that is executed is in the nature of contract between the parties and they are bound by it. He would contend that identical legislation introduced by the State of Madhya Pradesh did fall for consideration before the Apex Court in Dr. VAIBHAV YAWALKAR v. UNION OF INDIA2 and would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPERSPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA3. He would contend that the petitions are hit by delay and laches and the petitioners have taken admission under the Government quota in the year 2015-16 and have chosen to prefer these writ petitions in the year 2021. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the execution of bonds executed in the year 2015-16, they ought to have called that in question in the year 2015 itself and not after six years. In defense of the allegation that the bonds are executed under an amended rule 2 2019 SCC OnLine MP 5436 3 (2019) 8 SCC 607 134 which is never notified, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that though the amendment to Rule 11 under the 2006 Rules was notified on 08-06-2021, the petitioners were made aware of the notification and, therefore, they cannot contend that merely because the notification is not immediately gazetted it would not affect the validity of the notification since the petitioners were at all times aware that compulsory rural service is a necessity at the time when they exit on completion of MBBS course. For every submission supra, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance upon several judgments and those relevant to the issue would bear consideration in the course of the order.
Karnataka High Court Cites 139 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Dr. Sharanya Mohan vs Union Of India Ministry Of Health And ... on 22 April, 2024

6.1.3. Insofar as imposition of execution of bonds by the petitioners as a condition for admission to medical colleges is concerned, it would not be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the bond that is executed is in the nature of contract between the parties and they are bound by it. He would contend that identical legislation introduced by the State of Madhya Pradesh did fall for consideration before the Apex Court in Dr. VAIBHAV YAWALKAR v. UNION OF INDIA2 and would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPERSPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA3. He would contend that the petitions are hit by delay and laches and the petitioners have taken admission under the Government quota in the year 2015-16 and have chosen to prefer these writ petitions in the year 2021. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the execution of bonds executed in the year 2015-16, they ought to have called that in question in the year 2015 itself and not after six years. In defense of the allegation that the bonds are executed under an amended rule 2 2019 SCC OnLine MP 5436 3 (2019) 8 SCC 607 134 which is never notified, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that though the amendment to Rule 11 under the 2006 Rules was notified on 08-06-2021, the petitioners were made aware of the notification and, therefore, they cannot contend that merely because the notification is not immediately gazetted it would not affect the validity of the notification since the petitioners were at all times aware that compulsory rural service is a necessity at the time when they exit on completion of MBBS course. For every submission supra, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance upon several judgments and those relevant to the issue would bear consideration in the course of the order.
Karnataka High Court Cites 139 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Dr. Prarthana N vs Union Of India on 22 April, 2024

6.1.3. Insofar as imposition of execution of bonds by the petitioners as a condition for admission to medical colleges is concerned, it would not be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the bond that is executed is in the nature of contract between the parties and they are bound by it. He would contend that identical legislation introduced by the State of Madhya Pradesh did fall for consideration before the Apex Court in Dr. VAIBHAV YAWALKAR v. UNION OF INDIA2 and would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPERSPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA3. He would contend that the petitions are hit by delay and laches and the petitioners have taken admission under the Government quota in the year 2015-16 and have chosen to prefer these writ petitions in the year 2021. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the execution of bonds executed in the year 2015-16, they ought to have called that in question in the year 2015 itself and not after six years. In defense of the allegation that the bonds are executed under an amended rule 2 2019 SCC OnLine MP 5436 3 (2019) 8 SCC 607 134 which is never notified, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that though the amendment to Rule 11 under the 2006 Rules was notified on 08-06-2021, the petitioners were made aware of the notification and, therefore, they cannot contend that merely because the notification is not immediately gazetted it would not affect the validity of the notification since the petitioners were at all times aware that compulsory rural service is a necessity at the time when they exit on completion of MBBS course. For every submission supra, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance upon several judgments and those relevant to the issue would bear consideration in the course of the order.
Karnataka High Court Cites 139 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Ananya Anantharaman vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 2024

6.1.3. Insofar as imposition of execution of bonds by the petitioners as a condition for admission to medical colleges is concerned, it would not be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the bond that is executed is in the nature of contract between the parties and they are bound by it. He would contend that identical legislation introduced by the State of Madhya Pradesh did fall for consideration before the Apex Court in Dr. VAIBHAV YAWALKAR v. UNION OF INDIA2 and would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPERSPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA3. He would contend that the petitions are hit by delay and laches and the petitioners have taken admission under the Government quota in the year 2015-16 and have chosen to prefer these writ petitions in the year 2021. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the execution of bonds executed in the year 2015-16, they ought to have called that in question in the year 2015 itself and not after six years. In defense of the allegation that the bonds are executed under an amended rule 2 2019 SCC OnLine MP 5436 3 (2019) 8 SCC 607 134 which is never notified, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that though the amendment to Rule 11 under the 2006 Rules was notified on 08-06-2021, the petitioners were made aware of the notification and, therefore, they cannot contend that merely because the notification is not immediately gazetted it would not affect the validity of the notification since the petitioners were at all times aware that compulsory rural service is a necessity at the time when they exit on completion of MBBS course. For every submission supra, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance upon several judgments and those relevant to the issue would bear consideration in the course of the order.
Karnataka High Court Cites 139 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Dr Shivani Ramachandran vs Union Of India on 22 April, 2024

6.1.3. Insofar as imposition of execution of bonds by the petitioners as a condition for admission to medical colleges is concerned, it would not be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the bond that is executed is in the nature of contract between the parties and they are bound by it. He would contend that identical legislation introduced by the State of Madhya Pradesh did fall for consideration before the Apex Court in Dr. VAIBHAV YAWALKAR v. UNION OF INDIA2 and would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPERSPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA3. He would contend that the petitions are hit by delay and laches and the petitioners have taken admission under the Government quota in the year 2015-16 and have chosen to prefer these writ petitions in the year 2021. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the execution of bonds executed in the year 2015-16, they ought to have called that in question in the year 2015 itself and not after six years. In defense of the allegation that the bonds are executed under an amended rule 2 2019 SCC OnLine MP 5436 3 (2019) 8 SCC 607 134 which is never notified, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that though the amendment to Rule 11 under the 2006 Rules was notified on 08-06-2021, the petitioners were made aware of the notification and, therefore, they cannot contend that merely because the notification is not immediately gazetted it would not affect the validity of the notification since the petitioners were at all times aware that compulsory rural service is a necessity at the time when they exit on completion of MBBS course. For every submission supra, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance upon several judgments and those relevant to the issue would bear consideration in the course of the order.
Karnataka High Court Cites 139 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Dr Sharanya Mohan vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 2024

6.1.3. Insofar as imposition of execution of bonds by the petitioners as a condition for admission to medical colleges is concerned, it would not be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the bond that is executed is in the nature of contract between the parties and they are bound by it. He would contend that identical legislation introduced by the State of Madhya Pradesh did fall for consideration before the Apex Court in Dr. VAIBHAV YAWALKAR v. UNION OF INDIA2 and would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPERSPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA3. He would contend that the petitions are hit by delay and laches and the petitioners have taken admission under the Government quota in the year 2015-16 and have chosen to prefer these writ petitions in the year 2021. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the execution of bonds executed in the year 2015-16, they ought to have called that in question in the year 2015 itself and not after six years. In defense of the allegation that the bonds are executed under an amended rule 2 2019 SCC OnLine MP 5436 3 (2019) 8 SCC 607 134 which is never notified, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that though the amendment to Rule 11 under the 2006 Rules was notified on 08-06-2021, the petitioners were made aware of the notification and, therefore, they cannot contend that merely because the notification is not immediately gazetted it would not affect the validity of the notification since the petitioners were at all times aware that compulsory rural service is a necessity at the time when they exit on completion of MBBS course. For every submission supra, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance upon several judgments and those relevant to the issue would bear consideration in the course of the order.
Karnataka High Court Cites 139 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Mr. Dr. G Sai Abilash vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 2024

6.1.3. Insofar as imposition of execution of bonds by the petitioners as a condition for admission to medical colleges is concerned, it would not be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the bond that is executed is in the nature of contract between the parties and they are bound by it. He would contend that identical legislation introduced by the State of Madhya Pradesh did fall for consideration before the Apex Court in Dr. VAIBHAV YAWALKAR v. UNION OF INDIA2 and would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL SUPERSPECIALITY ASPIRANTS AND RESIDENTS v. UNION OF INDIA3. He would contend that the petitions are hit by delay and laches and the petitioners have taken admission under the Government quota in the year 2015-16 and have chosen to prefer these writ petitions in the year 2021. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the execution of bonds executed in the year 2015-16, they ought to have called that in question in the year 2015 itself and not after six years. In defense of the allegation that the bonds are executed under an amended rule 2 2019 SCC OnLine MP 5436 3 (2019) 8 SCC 607 134 which is never notified, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that though the amendment to Rule 11 under the 2006 Rules was notified on 08-06-2021, the petitioners were made aware of the notification and, therefore, they cannot contend that merely because the notification is not immediately gazetted it would not affect the validity of the notification since the petitioners were at all times aware that compulsory rural service is a necessity at the time when they exit on completion of MBBS course. For every submission supra, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance upon several judgments and those relevant to the issue would bear consideration in the course of the order.
Karnataka High Court Cites 139 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document
1   2 Next