Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 221 (0.94 seconds)
Documents citing Medical Council Of India vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 16 July, 1998

Bharathidasan University, Palkalai ... vs All India Council For Technical ... on 21 October, 1998

"The Indian Medical Council Act is relatable to Entry 66 of List I (Union List). It prevails over any State enactment to the extent the State enactment is repugnant to the provisions of the Act even though the State Act may be relatable to Entry 25 or 26 of List III (Concurrent List). Regulations framed under Sec.33 of the Medical Council Act with the previous sanction of the Central Government are statutory. These regulations are framed to carry out the purposes of the Medical Council Act and for various purposes mentioned in Section 33. If a Regulation falls within the purposes referred under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act, it will have mandatory force. Regulations have been framed with reference to Clauses (fa) (fb) and (fc) which have been introduced by the Amendment Act of 1993 w.e.f. 27.8.1992 and clauses (j), (k) and (l) of Section 33. It may be stated that the aforesaid decision in supra was also followed by their Lordships in Medical Council of India v State of Karnataka, , Once it is found that the AICTE Act has occupied the field, the State Government cannot "even legislate on the subject and without the permission of the petitioner, it cannot start a technical institution, no can it admit students for B.E. or other Technical Courses."
Madras High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Teerthanker Mahaveer Institute Of ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 September, 2011

Here it would also be useful to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the judgment in Medical Council of India vs State of Karnataka & Ors. (1998)6SCC131 where the Court was dealing with the power of State of Karnatka to fix the admission capacity in the medical colleges of the State prior to the insertion of Section 10A, 10B and 10C in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. While deciding the said question, the Apex Court took a view that no medical college can admit any student in excess of its capacity fixed by the Medical Council, subject to any increase thereof as approved by the Central Government and that Section 10A, 10B and 10C will prevail over W.P.(C) Nos.5763, 5917 & 4920/2011 Page 96 of 110 Section 53(10) of the Karnataka Universities Act and Section 4(1)(b) of the said Capitation Fee Act. The following paras from the said judgment are reproduced as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - K Gambhir - Full Document

Aneesh D. Lawande & Ors vs State Of Goa & Ors on 30 August, 2013

Had the NEET not been introduced, they would have been admitted under the Rules. But, presently the situation is totally different. With the intention to solve the problem we had directed issue of notice to the Medical Council of India. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India, has invited our attention to the pronouncements of this Court in K.S. Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra and others[8], Faiza Choudhary v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and another[9], Satyabrata Sahoo and others v. State of Orissa and others[10] and Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and others[11].
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 14 - D Misra - Full Document

Dr. Hemant Narayan Ray vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 11 April, 2022

(Vide State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute [(1995) 4 SCC 104] , Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka [(1998) 6 SCC 131] and Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) v. State of M.P. [(1999) 7 SCC 120] ) It, therefore, follows that if Clauses 56(2) and 57 of amended University Ordinance 1 of 2002 are inconsistent with MCI Regulation 12(4), they will be void to the extent of inconsistency. On the other hand, if the said Clauses merely implement, or make explicit what is implicit in MCI Regulation 12(4), then they will be valid and binding."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S N Pathak - Full Document

Dr.S.P.Shiani & Others vs For on 25 September, 2014

Further, the condition of 50% marks in the entrance test was reduced to 40% because 80% of the seats reserved for PCMS doctors remained unfilled because most of them could not secure 50% marks in PGET due to the fact that they do not get academic support in rural areas. It is submitted that the postgraduate entrance examination is held for those who have already passed in MBBS examination by securing at least 50% marks and, therefore, the candidates who had not secured 50% in the postgraduate entrance examination cannot be declared to be filled (sic) in MBBS. The lowering of the marks to less than 50% has the twin objective of safeguarding the interests of weaker sections of the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes and to meet the constitutional obligation. We are afraid, the approach of the State of Punjab in this regard results in stultifying the logic. What is contended is that suitable candidates are to be selected from amongst the eligible candidates and in that regard an entrance test is being held. When such an entrance test is held, a prescription has been made by the Medial Council of India fixing a standard in terms of Entry 66 List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and which cannot be diluted at all as has been held in a series of decisions including Dr.Preeti Srivastava case, Dr.Narayan Sharma v. Dr.Pankaj Kumar Lehkar and Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka. Therefore, it is not open to the university or the Government to dilute that standard by fixing marks lower than what is set out by the Medical Council of India. If they had any difficulty they ought to have approached the Medical Council of India for fixing of appropriate standards in that regard. The State Government could not unilaterally frame a scheme reducing the standard in violation of the terms of the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, which is repeatedly stated by this Court to be the repository of the power to prescribe standards in postgraduate studies subject, of course, to the control of the Central Government as envisaged in the Act constituting the Council.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Dayanand Medical College And Hospital & ... on 11 October, 2001

It is clear that in respect of subjects other than Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Pathology, Microbiology, Forensic Medicine and Social and Preventive Medicine at least 40% of the marks will have to be obtained in order to be eligible for admission and in respect of other subjects there is no such condition at all. In the counter affidavit filed in the High Court, it is stated that the percentage of marks has been reduced below 40% for the basic subjects like Anatomy, Physiology and Pharmacology because the candidates of higher merit are not opting for these subjects and as such the postgraduate seats in Departments of Anatomy, Physiology and Pharmacology keep lying vacant and thus leading to an acute shortage of teachers in these Departments. Further, the condition of 50% marks in the entrance test was reduced to 40% because 80% of the seats reserved for PCMS doctors remained unfilled because most of them could not secure 50% marks in PGET due to the fact that they do not get academic support in rural areas. It is submitted that the postgraduate entrance examination is held for those who have already passed in MBBS examination by securing at least 50% marks and, therefore, the candidates who had not secured 50% in the postgraduate entrance examination cannot be declared to be filled in MBBS. The lowering of the marks to less than 50% has the twin objective of safeguarding the interests of weaker sections of the Scheduled Castes and Backward classes and to meet the constitutional obligation. We are afraid, the approach of the State of Punjab in this regard results in stultifying the logic. What is contended is that suitable candidates are to be selected from amongst the eligible candidates and in that regard an entrance test is being held. When such an entrance test is held, a prescription has been made by the Medical Council of India fixing a standard in terms of Entry 66, List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and which cannot be diluted at all as has been held in a series of decisions including Dr. Preeti Srivastavas case [supra], Dr.Narayan Sharma vs. Dr. Pankaj Kumar Lehkar [supra] and Medical Council of India vs. State of Karnataka [supra]. Therefore, it is not open to the University or the Government to dilute that standard by fixing marks lower than what is set out by Medical Council of India. If they had any difficulty they ought to have approached the Medical Council of India for fixing of appropriate standards in that regard. The State Government could not unilaterally frame a scheme reducing the standard in violation of the terms of the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, which is repeatedly stated by this Court to be repository of the power to prescribe standards in Post Graduate studies subject, of course, to the control of the Central Government as envisaged in the Act constituting the Council.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 90 - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Prajwal Shrikhande on 27 January, 2021

13. The Karnataka High Court also passed a similar order for treatment of such patients in Writ Petition No.19061/2015- Lysosomal Storage Disorders Society in India Vs. State of Karnataka on 24.2.2020, holding that it was duty of the Central Government and the State Government to ensure that justice is done to such patients and they will not allow any such contingency to happen. The Karnataka High Court vide order dated 24.2.2020 issued following interim directions:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S A Bobde - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next