Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.26 seconds)The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970
Union Of India vs Federation Of Self Financed Ayurvedic ... on 20 February, 2020
In view of the above discussions on the points argued by the learned
advocates representing the parties to the appeal and placing reliance upon
the above referred judgments delivered by the Supreme Court including the
recent judgment of the Supreme Court dated 20th February, 2020 in
Federation of Self-Financed Ayurvedic Colleges (Supra) we set-aside the
orders of the learned Single Judge dated 23rd June, 2020 and the order
dated 8th September, 2020 modifying the previous order and in view of our
interpretation of relevant provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council
(Minimum standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Amendment
Regulations, 2018 specially Regulation 2 (d)(i) & (ii) framed under the Indian
Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 the candidates aspiring to take
admission in BAMS/BUMS/BHMS Courses for the academic session 2019-
29
20 are required to qualify entrance examination (NEET UG-2019) as
contemplated under the said amendment Regulations of 2018.
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Medical Council Of India vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 16 July, 1998
In the case of Medical Council of India v. State of
Karnataka a Bench of three Judges of this Court has
distinguished the observations made in Nivedita Jain.
The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors vs Motilal Nehru Medical College ... on 1 May, 1985
In Sweta Singh (Supra) the learned Single Judge saved admission of
Sweta upon placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in
Dinesh Kumar (Dr.) Vs. Motilal Neheru Medical College and Priya Gupta Vs.
State of Chattisgarh on inadequacy of notice of admission into medical
courses in the backdrop of fact that the writ petitioner (Sweta) was ward of
insured person under Employees State Insurance Corporation and was
eligible to be considered as ESIC category candidate. Under the said
category in the relevant academic year the last candidate who took
admission obtained lesser marks in the entrance test than Sweta and Sweta
was permitted to take provisional admission in the MBBS Course vide
interim order dated September 26, 2014 within the cutoff date of September
30, 2014.
Priya Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors on 8 May, 2012
In this regard
reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in
26
(2005) 2 SCC 65 paragraph 32 (Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Another Vs. Union
of India & Others); (2012) 10 SCC 149 paragraph 14 (Faiza Choudhary
Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir And Another) and AIR 2012 SC 2413
paragraph 53 (Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.).
Saurabh Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh 59 Mcrc/896/2018 ... on 28 March, 2018
In Sweta Singh (Supra) the learned Single Judge saved admission of
Sweta upon placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in
Dinesh Kumar (Dr.) Vs. Motilal Neheru Medical College and Priya Gupta Vs.
State of Chattisgarh on inadequacy of notice of admission into medical
courses in the backdrop of fact that the writ petitioner (Sweta) was ward of
insured person under Employees State Insurance Corporation and was
eligible to be considered as ESIC category candidate. Under the said
category in the relevant academic year the last candidate who took
admission obtained lesser marks in the entrance test than Sweta and Sweta
was permitted to take provisional admission in the MBBS Course vide
interim order dated September 26, 2014 within the cutoff date of September
30, 2014.
Medical Council Of India vs Madhu Singh And Ors on 11 September, 2002
25. Another limb of submission made on behalf of the respondents is in
the event the admission of the candidates who did not qualify in NEET UG-
2019 is not saved, the seats in the colleges would go vacant. The same
argument does not hold water in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in (2002) 7 SCC 258 paragraph 22 and 23 (Medical Council
of India vs. Madhu Singh and Others) wherein the Supreme Court has
categorically held that even the seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground
for mid-session admission after the cutoff date.