Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 164 (1.45 seconds)
Documents citing Association Of Medical Super ... vs Union Of India on 19 August, 2019

Dr. Nishant Gopaal S/O Shri Ajai Gopal vs The State Of Rajasthan on 10 November, 2022

The submission of learned Advocate General that the High Court of Madras has refused to release the documents of the candidates on the basis of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P. S. Sairam & Ors. (supra), in humble opinion of this Court, the Madras High Court has taken a view that the issue of retention of documents stands concluded in view of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and Others (supra) and the same is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 47 - Cited by 7 - A K Gaur - Full Document

Dr. Anurag Bhakhar S/O Shri Atmajeet ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 10 November, 2022

The submission of learned Advocate General that the High Court of Madras has refused to release the documents of the candidates on the basis of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P. S. Sairam & Ors. (supra), in humble opinion of this Court, the Madras High Court has taken a view that the issue of retention of documents stands concluded in view of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and Others (supra) and the same is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - A K Gaur - Full Document

Dr. Krishnapriya S. Kumar D/O Shri ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 10 November, 2022

The submission of learned Advocate General that the High Court of Madras has refused to release the documents of the candidates on the basis of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P. S. Sairam & Ors. (supra), in humble opinion of this Court, the Madras High Court has taken a view that the issue of retention of documents stands concluded in view of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and Others (supra) and the same is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - A K Gaur - Full Document

Dr. Tahsim Anwar S/O Md. Tahir vs The State Of Rajasthan on 10 November, 2022

The submission of learned Advocate General that the High Court of Madras has refused to release the documents of the candidates on the basis of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P. S. Sairam & Ors. (supra), in humble opinion of this Court, the Madras High Court has taken a view that the issue of retention of documents stands concluded in view of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and Others (supra) and the same is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - A K Gaur - Full Document

Dr. Shubham Jain S/O Mr. Rakesh Jain vs The State Of Rajasthan on 10 November, 2022

The submission of learned Advocate General that the High Court of Madras has refused to release the documents of the candidates on the basis of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P. S. Sairam & Ors. (supra), in humble opinion of this Court, the Madras High Court has taken a view that the issue of retention of documents stands concluded in view of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and Others (supra) and the same is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - A K Gaur - Full Document

Dr. Beena Sen D/O Arvind Sen vs Union Of India on 10 November, 2022

The submission of learned Advocate General that the High Court of Madras has refused to release the documents of the candidates on the basis of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P. S. Sairam & Ors. (supra), in humble opinion of this Court, the Madras High Court has taken a view that the issue of retention of documents stands concluded in view of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and Others (supra) and the same is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - A K Gaur - Full Document

Dr. Rahul Anand vs The State Of Bihar on 26 June, 2020

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an exhaustive representation before the Principal Secretary, Health Department for appropriate decision with regard to compulsory service in the State of Bihar and payment of compensation in lieu of compulsory service in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants & Residents and others Vs. Union of India and others(supra).
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A K Upadhyay - Full Document

Hospitals Association, Nagpur Thr. The ... vs Governoment Of Maharashtra Thr. The ... on 23 October, 2020

In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents and others v. Union of India and others, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 607, it was a case dealing with the controversy in respect of the compulsory bond to be executed for admission to post-graduate medical courses and superspeciality courses in the State of Maharashtra as well as in other States. Considering the challenge of imposition of condition that the 47 wp1936.20.odt appellants before the Apex Court should serve in the Government Medical Colleges for a period of one year, failing which they have to pay a penalty, it was held by this Court that it is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. It was observed that the State has a legitimate interest in ensuring the students who benefitted from the infrastructure created by it must contribute back to the community by public service. This decision was the subject-matter of challenge before the Apex Court. 26.1. In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court noted that the subject of medical education is covered by Entry 25, List III of Schedule VII in the Constitution of India and it is subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I. The legislations can be made by the State Legislature relating to medical education subject to the legislation made by the Parliament. The Apex Court observed that there is no provision contained in the Medical Council of India Act touching upon the subject-matter of compulsory bonds and, therefore, the States are free to legislate on the subject-matter of medical bonds. It is held that the executive authority of the State Government is co-extensive with that of the legislative power of the State Legislature. Even in the absence of any legislation, the State Government has the competence to issue executive orders under Article 162 of the Constitution of India on the matters 48 wp1936.20.odt over which the State Legislature has the power to legislate. It is held that the State Governments have taken into account the need to provide health care to the people and the scarcity of superspecialities in their State. Consequently, it is held that a policy decision taken by the State Governments to utilize the services of doctors who were beneficiaries of the Government assistance to complete their education, cannot be termed as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 26.2. On the question of challenge to such compulsory bonds on the touchstone of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court has held that the conditions imposed for admission to a medical college will not directly violate the right of an individual to carry on his profession. It is held that the right to carry on the profession would start on the completion of the course and there is no right inheres in an individual to receive higher education. The violation of the guarantee under Article 19(1)(g) in a case pertaining to admission to a college does not at all arise. The condition imposed has a nexus with the professional activity of a doctor on completion of the course.
Bombay High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - R K Deshpande - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next