Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Section 6 in The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
State Of Gujarat vs Brijkishiore Garg on 23 September, 1999
(21) As held by the Apex Court in the case of
Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh & Ors.
as well as the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Brijkishore
Garg, this Court in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot
direct the Medical Council of India to permit
midsession admission.
Medical Council Of India vs Sarang & Ors on 28 August, 2001
(ii) Medical Council of India Vs. Sarang & Ors.
[(2001) 8 SCC 427];
Medical Council Of India vs Madhu Singh And Ors on 11 September, 2002
(21) As held by the Apex Court in the case of
Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh & Ors.
as well as the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Brijkishore
Garg, this Court in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot
direct the Medical Council of India to permit
midsession admission.
The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors vs Dr. Anupam Gupta Etc on 13 February, 1992
In case of
State of U.P. and others vs. Dr. Anupam Guta etc.
AIR 1992 S.C. 932, the Supreme Court has held
that direction by the High Court to admit the
candidates in the midstream is bad in law. If the
interpretation put by the learned Single Judge is
upheld, it would mean that a student would be
entitled to admission to medical course in the
midstream causing lot of inconvenience to all. In
our opinion, a student, who has not passed
qualifying examination in the month of
March/April of the current year or
October/November of the preceding year, cannot be
admitted to medical course next year in view of
clear and mandatory provisions of rule 1 of the
Rules. Therefore, the finding recorded by the
learned Single Judge to the effect that mention
about the month "March/April of the current year
or October/November of the preceding year" cannot
be applied with vigour and case of the daughter
of the respondent for admission for the year
199596, is erroneous and liable to be set
aside."
State Of Kerala vs Kumari T. P. Roshana & Anr on 17 January, 1979
"In 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. This position has been made clear by this
Court in The University of Mysore & Anr. vs.
C.D.Govinda Rao & Anr., 1964 (4) SCR 575; State of
Kerala vs. Kumari T.P.Roshana & Anr., 1979 (2)
SCR 974 and Shirish Govind Prabhudesai vs. State
of Maharashtra & Ors., 1993 (1) SCC 211.The object
of the said regulation appears to be that although
the course of study leading to 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
Page 26 of 36
C/SCA/18062/2014 JUDGMENT
permissible.
The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963
"In 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. This position has been made clear by this
Court in The University of Mysore & Anr. vs.
C.D.Govinda Rao & Anr., 1964 (4) SCR 575; State of
Kerala vs. Kumari T.P.Roshana & Anr., 1979 (2)
SCR 974 and Shirish Govind Prabhudesai vs. State
of Maharashtra & Ors., 1993 (1) SCC 211.The object
of the said regulation appears to be that although
the course of study leading to 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
Page 26 of 36
C/SCA/18062/2014 JUDGMENT
permissible.
Shirish Govind Prabhudesai vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 21 October, 1992
"In 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. This position has been made clear by this
Court in The University of Mysore & Anr. vs.
C.D.Govinda Rao & Anr., 1964 (4) SCR 575; State of
Kerala vs. Kumari T.P.Roshana & Anr., 1979 (2)
SCR 974 and Shirish Govind Prabhudesai vs. State
of Maharashtra & Ors., 1993 (1) SCC 211.The object
of the said regulation appears to be that although
the course of study leading to 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
Page 26 of 36
C/SCA/18062/2014 JUDGMENT
permissible.