Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.44 seconds)The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
Aiims Employees Union & Ors. vs Aiims & Ors. on 2 February, 1999
It is submitted that in the case of AIIMS
Students’ Union v. AIIMS reported in (2002) 1 SCC 428, the
“Institutional Reservation” was permitted only to an extent of
25%.
D. N. Chanchala vs State Of Mysore And Ors. Etc.(With ... on 3 May, 1971
9. All these appeal/petitions are vehemently opposed by the
learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective States,
respective Universities and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the MCI. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective respondents have vehemently submitted that, as such,
the “Institutional Preference” is held to be permissible by this
Court right from 1971. It is submitted that the issue involved
with respect to “Institutional Preference” is now not res integra in
view of the decisions of this Court in the cases of D.N. Chanchala
v. State of Mysore reported in (1971) 2 SCC 293; Dr. Pradeep Jain
(supra); a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Saurabh
Chaudri (supra); and Gujarat University v. Rajiv Gopinath Bhatt
reported in (1996) 4 SCC 60. It is submitted therefore now it will
not be open for the petitioners to again reagitate the issue with
respect to “Institutional Preference”. It is submitted that the
relevant regulations prescribing “Institutional Preference” are
9
absolutely in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in
the aforesaid decisions.
Gujarat University vs Rajiv Gopinath Bhatt & Ors on 1 May, 1996
9. All these appeal/petitions are vehemently opposed by the
learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective States,
respective Universities and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the MCI. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective respondents have vehemently submitted that, as such,
the “Institutional Preference” is held to be permissible by this
Court right from 1971. It is submitted that the issue involved
with respect to “Institutional Preference” is now not res integra in
view of the decisions of this Court in the cases of D.N. Chanchala
v. State of Mysore reported in (1971) 2 SCC 293; Dr. Pradeep Jain
(supra); a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Saurabh
Chaudri (supra); and Gujarat University v. Rajiv Gopinath Bhatt
reported in (1996) 4 SCC 60. It is submitted therefore now it will
not be open for the petitioners to again reagitate the issue with
respect to “Institutional Preference”. It is submitted that the
relevant regulations prescribing “Institutional Preference” are
9
absolutely in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in
the aforesaid decisions.
Dr. Saurabh Dwivedi vs Union Of India on 7 June, 2017
12. Therefore, for the reasons stated above and considering the decisions of this Court in the cases of Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra); a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Saurabh Chaudri (supra); and Saurabh Dwivedi (supra), Institutional Preference to the extent of 50% is approved and it is observed and held that introduction of the NEET Scheme shall not affect such Institutional Preference/Reservation. Such a regulation providing 50% Institutional Preference/Reservation shall not be in any way ultra vires to Section 10D of the MCI Act. Even otherwise, as observed hereinabove, even in the case of Institutional Preference/Reservation, the admissions in the post graduate courses are to be given on the basis of the merits and marks obtained in the NEET examination result only. 17 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these appeal/writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Dr. Pradeep Jain Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 22 June, 1984
12. Therefore, for the reasons stated above and considering the decisions of this Court in the cases of Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra); a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Saurabh Chaudri (supra); and Saurabh Dwivedi (supra), Institutional Preference to the extent of 50% is approved and it is observed and held that introduction of the NEET Scheme shall not affect such Institutional Preference/Reservation. Such a regulation providing 50% Institutional Preference/Reservation shall not be in any way ultra vires to Section 10D of the MCI Act. Even otherwise, as observed hereinabove, even in the case of Institutional Preference/Reservation, the admissions in the post graduate courses are to be given on the basis of the merits and marks obtained in the NEET examination result only. 17 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these appeal/writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.