Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 104 (3.26 seconds)
Documents citing Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 July, 2013

Dr.M.Hemalatha vs / on 2 May, 2017

86.It is true that clause XVII of the Information Bulletin for National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (Post Graduate) for MD/MS/Post Graduate Diploma Courses, 2017 issued by National Board of Examinations, New Delhi speaks about the counseling for admissions to private medical colleges, institutes, universities and deemed universities shall be conducted by the designated counseling authority of the above institutes. National Board of Examinations is only the executing agency and it cannot speak about counseling. Further, immediately after the recall of the judgment made in Christian Medical College, Vellore and Others v. Union of India and Others by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the UGC wrote a letter on 15.09.2016 to all the deemed universities, informing that as per clause 6.3 of the UGC regulations, admission in the medical institutes and institutions deemed to be universities have to be made through NEET which is prescribed by Medical Council of India for such institution. In page 2 of the said communication, the UGC has given two directions for admission in the medical colleges which are as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document

1) Dr. B. Satish Kumar, S/O B. R. ... vs Union Of India, Represented By Its ... on 24 August, 2017

02-2012, was holding the field. In other words, on the date on which the decision in Sandeep was rendered, NEET was not heard of and had already been struck down by the Supreme Court. But by a subsequent order dated 11-4-2016 passed by a 5-member bench in Medical Council of India v. Christian Medical College , the decision reported in Christian Medical College v. Union of India [(2014) 2 SCC 305] was recalled.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 42 - Cited by 11 - T Rajani - Full Document

Dr. Himanshu Dwivedi vs Kempegowda Institute Of Medical ... on 9 March, 2018

- ('Regulation 9 of the Regulations 2009', for short) was permanently effaced with its substitution by Regulation 9 of the Postgraduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2010 (Para III) ('Regulation 9 of Regulation 2010', for short), and later the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Christian Medical College, Vellore Vs. Union of India4 also declared Regulation 9 of 'Regulations 2010 violated Part-III of the Constitution; and therefore, both the Regulation 9 1 (2014) 2 SCC 305 decided on 18.07.2013 2 (2016) 2 SCC 342 decided on 11.4.2016 3 (2011) 8 SCC 737, (1985) 1 SCC 641 & AIR 1963 SC 928 4 (2014) 2 SCC 305 decided on 18.07.2013 14 of Regulations 2009 and Regulation 9 of the Regulations 2010 ceased to be in operation, and as such, there was vacuum until 11.04.2016 when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its second decision in Christian Medical College Vs. Union of India5 recalled its decision in the first case restoring Regulation 9 of the Regulations 2010.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - B M Prasad - Full Document

All India Anna Dravida Munnetra ... vs Union Of India on 27 July, 2020

79. The aforesaid argument on behalf of the Medical Council of India does not appear to be exactly appropriate for the following reasons. Firstly, that the Scheme itself came to be initiated as a concept for All India centralised admission process by the Apex Court and from a reading of all the judgments right from Dr.Pradeep Jain (supra) upto the judgment in the case of Christian Medical College (supra), it is clear that the scheme as originally framed came to be modulated time and again with observations being made in the cases of Rajeshwaran and K.Jayakumar (supra).
Madras High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 1 - S Ramamoorthy - Full Document

U.P.Unaided Medical Colleges Welfare ... vs Union Of India Thru.Secy.(Medical ... on 15 September, 2016

As already stated earlier the regulations prescribing ''NEET' were put to challenge before the Supreme Court and were struck down in the case of Christian Medical College Vellore vs Union of India 2014 (2) SCC 305, however, on a review petition being filed the said judgment was recalled vide judgment dated 11.4.2016 passed in Review Petition (C) Nos.
Allahabad High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dr. Narote Amol Sadashivrao vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2014

service seats between Diploma and Degree Course. We are not concerned with ongoing procedure or qualification and/or percentage of marks. Even these medical regulations recognizes the importance of percentage and weightage for in-service candidates. We are also not concerned with infrastructure or teaching standard of medical education. The MCI or such authority cannot control admission procedure or take away the rights or power of the State to frame admission rules and distribution of seats as per requirement. Those 2007/2000 regulations are in doubts and questioned. The learned counsel appearing for the MCI and other Petitioners of open candidates category however, referring to various Supreme Court Judgments and observations submitted that those are mandatory. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners referring to the Supreme Court Judgment Christian Medical College (Supra) and even referring to the relevant notifications under the Indian Medical Council Act (for short, "the IMC Act") including the subsequent notifications, (amending the 2000 MCI Regulations) pointed out that 2009 Regulations are superseded and/or cannot be relied upon by the 38/130 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:59:57 ::: ssm 39 901-wp-judgment-5290.13 State, in view of subsequent Regulation of 15 February 2012 w.e.f. 27 February 2012.
Bombay High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - A V Mohta - Full Document

Dr. Narote Amol Sadashivrao vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2014

service seats between Diploma and Degree Course. We are not concerned with ongoing procedure or qualification and/or percentage of marks. Even these medical regulations recognizes the importance of percentage and weightage for in-service candidates. We are also not concerned with infrastructure or teaching standard of medical education. The MCI or such authority cannot control admission procedure or take away the rights or power of the State to frame admission rules and distribution of seats as per requirement. Those 2007/2000 regulations are in doubts and questioned. The learned counsel appearing for the MCI and other Petitioners of open candidates category however, referring to various Supreme Court Judgments and observations submitted that those are mandatory. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners referring to the Supreme Court Judgment Christian Medical College (Supra) and even referring to the relevant notifications under the Indian Medical Council Act (for short, "the IMC Act") including the subsequent notifications, (amending the 2000 MCI Regulations) pointed out that 2009 Regulations are superseded and/or cannot be relied upon by the 38/130 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:59:09 ::: ssm 39 901-wp-judgment-5290.13 State, in view of subsequent Regulation of 15 February 2012 w.e.f. 27 February 2012.
Bombay High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - A V Mohta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next