Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)Section 10 in The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Gopal D. Tirthani & Ors on 28 July, 2003
In the decisions reported in (1999) 7 SCC 120 (Dr.Preeti Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others); (2001) 8 SCC 664 (State of Punjab v. Dayanand Medical College); (2003) 7 SCC 83 (State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Gopal D.Tirthani & Others) and (2007) 10 SCC 201 (Maharashtra University of Health Sciences V. Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal), the Honourable Supreme Court held that the State Governments and Universities are bound to follow provisions of the MCI Act, 1956, and the regulations framed for admission of students and also for conducting examinations. In W.A.No.901 to 909 of 2011, etc., batch, by order dated 16.11.2011 the Honourable First Bench of this Court held that the 4th respondent University is bound to follow MCI Regulations for conducting examinations and for declaring the results of the students. Thus, it is beyond doubt that the University is bound to follow the MCI Act, 1956 and the Regulations framed in their letter and spirit.
Maharashtra University Of Health ... vs Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal & Ors on 1 June, 2007
In the decisions reported in (1999) 7 SCC 120 (Dr.Preeti Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others); (2001) 8 SCC 664 (State of Punjab v. Dayanand Medical College); (2003) 7 SCC 83 (State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Gopal D.Tirthani & Others) and (2007) 10 SCC 201 (Maharashtra University of Health Sciences V. Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal), the Honourable Supreme Court held that the State Governments and Universities are bound to follow provisions of the MCI Act, 1956, and the regulations framed for admission of students and also for conducting examinations. In W.A.No.901 to 909 of 2011, etc., batch, by order dated 16.11.2011 the Honourable First Bench of this Court held that the 4th respondent University is bound to follow MCI Regulations for conducting examinations and for declaring the results of the students. Thus, it is beyond doubt that the University is bound to follow the MCI Act, 1956 and the Regulations framed in their letter and spirit.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dr.V.Balaji vs Union Of India on 25 November, 2008
22. The issue regarding conduct of PG degree/ Diploma/certificate course by the Government/University or granting permission to any medical college/institution without prior permission of the Central Government/MCI is already considered in several decisions, particularly in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2008 (6) CTC 568 (Dr.V.Balaji v. Union of India). In the said case a Diploma/Certificate of Diabetology course permitted by Government in Government Colleges without previous permission of the Central Government was held illegal. In the said decision in paragraphs 18 to 22 it is held thus,
" 18. The MCI Act of 1956 has been enacted by the Parliament in terms of the legislative authority under Entry 66 of List I. The aforesaid subject under Entry 66 always remained a preserve of the Parliament, even before the 42nd amendment of the Constitution. After the 42nd amendment, which came into effect on 3.1.1977, Entry 66 remained the same. But as a result of the 42nd amendment, Entry 11 in the State List (List II) was deleted. Entry 11 in the State List before deletion was as follows: -