Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)
Tania Mukherjee & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 8 February, 2022 cites

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

(iii) the areas under the Paschimanchal Unnayan Parshad and (iv) the areas under the Uttarbanga Unnayan Parshad. The expression received the assent and approval of the 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association vs. Union of India in the form of a mandate to the State Government to formulate a policy in relation to in-service doctors who seek admission through a separate channel of entry for postgraduate Medical courses. The direction of the Supreme Court was echoed by the State Government in its Notification dated 8th October, 2021 by requiring in-service candidates to serve in "rural/remote/difficult areas" for a minimum period of three years, taken together, as on 30th April of the academic year, for being considered as eligible for the in-service quota.
Supreme Court of India Cites 80 - Cited by 68 - M R Shah - Full Document

Balco Employees Union (Regd.) vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 December, 2001

Notwithstanding the controversy in the present matter, it should be stated that service in Specialized Units like SNCU, HDU, CCU, ICCU and ITU is by no means an easy task and may require round-the-clock duties. This Court recognizes the commitment shown by the in-service doctors who render 24x7 service in these Specialized Units. However, to include service in such Specialized Units within the definition of "rural and/or difficult areas" would amount to making in-roads into the policy frame-work of the State Government which a Writ Court should normally hesitate to do unless compelling reasons exist. A policy decision is not a perpetual no-go area and a Writ Court can certainly interfere in fit cases including where the policy is not backed by legislative competence or where there is an excessive delegation of essential legislative functions or an infraction of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Reference in this context may be made to Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) vs Union of India and Others; (2002) 2 SCC 333 where the Supreme Court advised against embarking upon the uncharted ocean of public policy. The present case is not one where the policy framed is 16 either capricious or arbitrary or has been framed without being informed by reasons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 1192 - Full Document

Dr. Sourav Chattopadhyay & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 March, 2021

Moreover, service by the in-service doctors in rural/remote/difficult areas must be read as part of the overall objective of the State to extend the access, availability and benefits of medical services in areas which are not easily accessible and far removed from the metropolitan cities/developed areas. It is also relevant to mention that a challenge to the definitions given to these expressions was repelled by the Single Bench of this Court in WPA 5460 of 2020 (Dr. Goutam Nemo Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) as well as by the Division Bench in MAT 773 of 2020 (Dr. Sourav Chattopadhyay & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) by orders dated 10th November, 2020 and 17th November, 2021 respectively.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - A Sinha - Full Document

Dr. Goutam Nemo vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 June, 2020

Moreover, service by the in-service doctors in rural/remote/difficult areas must be read as part of the overall objective of the State to extend the access, availability and benefits of medical services in areas which are not easily accessible and far removed from the metropolitan cities/developed areas. It is also relevant to mention that a challenge to the definitions given to these expressions was repelled by the Single Bench of this Court in WPA 5460 of 2020 (Dr. Goutam Nemo Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) as well as by the Division Bench in MAT 773 of 2020 (Dr. Sourav Chattopadhyay & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) by orders dated 10th November, 2020 and 17th November, 2021 respectively.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - R Mantha - Full Document
1