Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Dr. H.C. Mehta vs The State Of Haryana Through Financial ... on 24 March, 2003 cites

Managing Society Of The Dayananad ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 14 November, 1994

6. Respondent No. 4 has also filed written statement to similar effect apart from relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., 1999 (4) SLR 687 and judgments reported in Dr. (Mrs.) Kumud Dharwal v. State of Punjab, 2000 (8) SLR 654 and Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2001 (3) SLR 664. Respondent No. 4 has also relied on inspection report regarding inspection carried out on 14/15.9.2000 by Inspectors of Medical Council of India, which is as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 70 - Full Document

State Of Bihar And Another vs Ramesh Chandra And Another on 20 March, 1997

Judgement in Ramesh Chandra's case (supra) relied on by counsel for the petitioner is prior to the judgment in Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case (supra) and being at variance with the view taken in Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case (supra), which is a judgment by Constitution Bench, observation that regulations framed by Medical Council are only recommendatory cannot be held to be holding the field.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 181 - Full Document

Medical Council Of India vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 16 July, 1998

5. Reference is also made to letters dated 14.5.2002 and 16.5.2002 from Medical Council of India stating that since the petitioner was M.Sc. Bio-chemistry from Punjab Agricultural University and not from a Medical Faculty, he was not eligible for appointment has head of the department of Bio-chemistry in a Medical College. Reference is also made to a judgment of the Apex Court in Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2423 to the effect that regulations framed under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act, 1956 are binding and it is stated that the said regulations were notified in a gazette dated 5.12.1998 after permission of the Central Government and therefore, judgment of this Court dated 6.10.1995 is no longer operative.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 211 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Another, ... vs Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao & Anr., Etc on 9 March, 1988

In the earlier judgment of this Court dated 6.10.1995, the petitioner was held eligible under the Haryana Rules holding that recommendation of the Medical Council will not affect the said rules for which reliance was placed on judgments of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. K.M. Nevidita Jain, AIR 1981 SC 2045 and Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao and Anr., AIR 1988 SC 1048.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 28 - A P Sen - Full Document

Dr. (Mrs.) Kumud Dharwal vs State Of Punjab on 10 October, 2000

6. Respondent No. 4 has also filed written statement to similar effect apart from relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., 1999 (4) SLR 687 and judgments reported in Dr. (Mrs.) Kumud Dharwal v. State of Punjab, 2000 (8) SLR 654 and Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2001 (3) SLR 664. Respondent No. 4 has also relied on inspection report regarding inspection carried out on 14/15.9.2000 by Inspectors of Medical Council of India, which is as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - R C Kathuria - Full Document
1