Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 62 (8.03 seconds)
Documents citing Dinesh Kumar & Ors vs Motilal Nehru Medical College, ... on 21 July, 1986

Dr.C.Sudhan vs The Government Of India on 18 April, 2018

In Dinesh Kumar (Dr) (II) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College [(1986) 3 SCC 727] the two-Judge Bench examined a scheme of examination for admission to postgraduate courses suggested by the Government of India stipulating a weightage equivalent to 15 per cent of the total marks obtained by a student at the All-India Entrance Examination being given if he has put in a minimum of 3 years of rural service. The Court observed that it was eminently desirable that some incentive should be given to the doctors to go to the rural areas because there is concentration of doctors in the urban areas and the rural areas appear to be neglected. In spite of recording such justification the learned Judges proceeded to opine that they did not think that such incentive should go to the length of giving a weightage of 15 per cent of the total marks obtained by a candidate. The learned Judges then examined several reasons why the doctors are not persuaded to go to the rural areas and then concluded: [SCC p. 741, para 12(4)] [W]e are extremely doubtful if a candidate who has rendered three years' rural service for the purpose of getting a weightage of 15 per cent would go back to the rural area after he has got MD or MS degree. We are, therefore, of the view that no weightage should be given to a candidate for rural service rendered by him so far as admissions to postgraduate courses are concerned. It is clear that the Court was dealing with weightage to be assigned at the All-India Entrance Examination and that too from the point of view whether the postgraduates would revert back to rural services after postgraduating and because of this being extremely doubtful there was no point in giving such a weightage.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

Dr. Neeraj Bansal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2017

The Court then went on to add - "Even if the rule had provided for service in a rural area, it has been held that the classification is not a valid one." This latter part is not a ratio of the decision. Moreover, the Court cited in support the observations in Dinesh Kumar's case which were adversely commented upon in Dr. Snehlata Patnaik's case, as already noticed. The Court also referred to the judgment of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. V/s. Pradip Tandon and Ors.(1975) 1 SCC 267.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 131 - R S Jha - Full Document

Mahua Bindal And Ors. vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 30 July, 2020

The decision of this Court in Dinesh Kumar (2) [Dinesh Kumar (2) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, (1986) 3 SCC 727] permitting 25% institutional preference has been distinguished by a Constitution W.P.(C) 2941/2020 Page 27 of 32 Bench of this Court in Saurabh Chaudri [Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146 : 2 SCEC 452] . Therefore, once the institutional preference to the extent of 50% of the total number of open seats has been held to be permissible, in that case, thereafter it will be for the appropriate authority/State to consider how much percentage seats are to be reserved for institutional preference/reservation. It will be in the realm of a policy decision and this Court cannot substitute the same, unless it is held to be arbitrary and/or mala fide and/or not permissible.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - J Nath - Full Document

Tamil Nadu Medical Officers ... vs Union Of India on 31 August, 2020

26. The Medical Council of India, for the present, insists, through its Regulations, on a common entrance test being conducted whereat the minimum qualifying marks would be 50%. The State of Madhya Pradesh must comply with the 117 requirements of the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India and hold a common entrance test even if there are two separate channels of entry and allow clearance only to such candidates who secure the minimum qualifying marks as prescribed by the MCI Regulations. If the State has a case for making a departure from such rule or for carving out an exception in favour of any classification then it is for the State to represent to the Central Government and/or the Medical Council of India and make out a case of justification consistently with the afore­quoted observation of this Court in Dayanand Medical College and Hospital case [(2001) 8 SCC 664] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 80 - Cited by 68 - M R Shah - Full Document

Ujjwal Shori Through Natural Guardian ... vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 16 August, 2023

It is not that the right of the petitioner to appear in the All India Entrance Test for admission to medical colleges under the University of Delhi or all over India has been taken away. He has that right. We may mention that 15% of the total number of seats are admittedly to be filled up on the basis of All India Entrance Examination. Thus the requirement emphasised in Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Moti Lal Nehru Medical College[1986] 3 SCR 345 stands fully satisfied. We further feel that the following observations made in para.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - P K Kaurav - Full Document

Aryan Sandip Bihola vs State Of Gujarat on 13 October, 2023

17. The stand of the respondent State therein was that the Rules, 2017, are framed in exercise of power under Section 20 of the Act, 2007. The State cannot be denied the right to decide as to from what sources the admission will be made. The requirement of Rule 4(3) of the Rules, 2017 for having passed 10th and 12th Standard qualifying examination from the CBSE/ISCE Boards in schools located in the State of Gujarat is nothing but the requirement of furtherance of domiciliary of the State. Imparting medical education by medical colleges require considerable finance to maintain the same and, therefore, it is very much reasonable on the part of the State to see that advantage of the educational system prevalent in the State would be to a great extent, yield benefit to the State. It is legally permissible for the State to give more weightage to the said aspects for giving admission to undergraduate M.B.B.S. course being offered in the medical colleges of the State and there is nothing wrong. Rules 4(3)(ii) are based on Page 21 of 48 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 13 20:51:13 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12948/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2023 undefined intelligible differentia and there is nexus between the said classification and the object for the medical education offered in the State of Gujarat. The issue with regard to the requirement of domiciliary had been determined by the Apex Court in the case of Dr.Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India - (1984) 3 SCC 654 and Dr.Dinesh Kumar vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad - (1986) 3 SCC 727, wherein it is stated that the State Government is empowered to reserve 85% of the seats based on merit, restricting only to the students who have passed 12th Standard from any institution situated within the State of Gujarat and remaining 15% seats which are to be filled out of All India quota, on the basis of NEET examination. It was, thus, argued by the State therein that reservation of seats on the basis of domicile/residency and institutional preference is approved for undergraduate medical admission by the Apex Court in the above-noted decision and as such, no case was made out to seek invalidation of the rules.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Dr. A.V. Gopalakrishnan And Ors. vs Byju N. And Ors. on 6 August, 1998

1984 (3) SCC 654 : (AIR 1984 SC 1420); Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad (1986) 3 SCC 727 : (AIR 1986 SC 1877) and in M. R. Balaji v. The State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649 held that it is not enough that considering the seats given to All India Quota there will be 50% available to the general merit candidates, but 50% seats of the total State quota should be given to the merit candidates. Later it was also noticed by the learned single Judge that since after admission of the writ petitions further general merit quota candidates were admitted, 50% seats were actually filled up by merit candidates. The learned Judge held as follows :
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - J B Koshy - Full Document

Anant Madaan vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 25 January, 1995

10.In the present case, the reservation which has been made on the basis of candidates having studied for the preceding three years in recognised schools/colleges in Haryana is in respect of these 85% of seats. It excludes 15% seats which have to be filled in on an All India basis. This eligibility criterion, therefore, is in conformity with the decisions of this Court referred to above. It cannot, therefore, be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 37 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next