Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.47 seconds)Medical Council Of India vs Sarang & Ors on 28 August, 2001
20. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka, (1998) 6 SCC 131 and Medical Council of India v. Sarang, (2001) 8 SCC 427, are to the effect that standards have been laid down by the Medical Council, an expert body, for the purpose of imparting proper medical education and for maintaining uniform standards of medical education throughout the country and seats in colleges cannot be increased indiscriminately without regard to proper infrastructure as per the regulations of the Medical Council and that in the matters of academic standards, Courts should not normally interfere or interpret the rules and such matters should be left to the experts in the field.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Medical Council Of India vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 16 July, 1998
20. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka, (1998) 6 SCC 131 and Medical Council of India v. Sarang, (2001) 8 SCC 427, are to the effect that standards have been laid down by the Medical Council, an expert body, for the purpose of imparting proper medical education and for maintaining uniform standards of medical education throughout the country and seats in colleges cannot be increased indiscriminately without regard to proper infrastructure as per the regulations of the Medical Council and that in the matters of academic standards, Courts should not normally interfere or interpret the rules and such matters should be left to the experts in the field.
The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
Vellore Educational Trust vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 19 November, 1987
The decision of this Court reported in Vellore Educational Trust v. State of A.P. also lends support to such consideration of their claim."
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shirish Govind Prabhudesai vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 21 October, 1992
This position has been made clear by this Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao1, State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana2 and Shirish Govind Prabhudesai v. State of Maharashtra3. The object of the said Regulation appears to be that although the course of study leading to the IInd professional examination is common to all medical colleges, the sequence of coverage of subjects varies from college to college. Therefore, the requirement of 18 months of study in the college from which the student wants to appear in the examination is appropriately insisted upon. Migration is not normally allowed and has got to be given in exceptional circumstances. In the absence of such a stipulation as contained in Regulation 6(5), it is clear that the migrated student is likely to miss instruction and study in some of the subjects, which will ultimately affect his academic attainments. Therefore, the strained meaning given by the High Court, which actually changes the language of Regulation 6(5), is not permissible. Thus we disagree with the view taken by the High Court and state that the correct interpretation is as given by the Medical Council of India, set forth above by us."
Mahesh Chandra vs Regional Manager, U.P. Financial ... on 12 February, 1992
An arbitrary action is ultra vires. It does not become bona fide and in good faith merely because no personal gain or benefit to the person exercising discretion should be established. An action is mala fide if it is contrary to the purpose for which it was authorised to be exercised. This is the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corpn., (1993) 2 SCC 279.
Rama Sugar Industries Ltd vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 17 December, 1973
18. The Supreme Court in the case of Al-Karim Educational Trust, referred to above, has laid down a proposition that the deficiencies have been substantially complied with and minor deficiencies pointed out in the report are not such as to permit withholding of the affiliation to which the institution is entitled. From the manner in which the deficiencies have been pointed out from time to time, each time the old deficiencies are shown to have been removed, new deficiencies are shown, gives the impression that the affiliation is unnecessarily delayed. In the instant case also, the manner of the respondents in pointing out the deficiencies even though it was shown as nil in the earlier report gives an impression to this Court that the respondents have unnecessarily delayed the process of approval to the petitioner institution.