Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.35 seconds)Medical Council Of India vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 16 July, 1998
57.In the case of Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , a bench of three judges of the Court has distinguished the observation made in Kumari Nivedita Jain (supra), he has also disagreed with Ajay Kumar Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra) and has come to the conclusion that the Medical Council Regulations have a statutory force and are mandatory. The Court was concerned with admissions to the M.B.B.S. course and the Regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council relating to admission to the M.B.B.S. course.
Post Graduate Institute Ofmedical ... vs K.L.Narasimhan & Anr. Etc on 2 May, 1997
72.We, therefore, hold that the judgment of this Court in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh and Ors. v. K.L. Narasimhan and Anr., (supra) cannot be read as holding that any type of relaxation is permissible at the super-specialities level."
State Of Punjab vs Dayanand Medical College And Hospital & ... on 11 October, 2001
"26. The Medical Council of India, for the present, insists, through its Regulations, on a common entrance test being conducted whereat the minimum qualifying marks would be 50%. The State of Madhya Pradesh must comply with the requirements of the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India and hold a common entrance test even if there are two separate channels of entry and allow clearance only to such candidates who secure the minimum qualifying marks as prescribed by the MCI Regulations. If the State has a case for making a departure from such rule or for carving out an exception in favour of any classification then it is for the State to represent to the Central Government and/or Medical Council of India and make out a case of justification consistently with the fore-quoted observation of this Court in Dayanand Medical College and Hospital's case (2001) 8 SCC 664.
Dr. Narayan Sharma And Anr. Etc vs Dr. Pankaj Kr. Lehkar And Ors. Etc on 3 November, 1999
"17.It is clear that in respect of subjects other than Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Pathology, Microbiology, Forensic Medicine and Social and Preventive Medicine at least 40% of the marks will have to be obtained in order to be eligible for admission and in respect of other subjects there is no such condition at all. In the counter affidavit filed in the High Court, it is stated that the percentage of marks has been reduced below 40% for the basic subjects like anatomy, Physiology and Pharmacology because the candidates of higher merit are not opting for these subjects and as such the postgraduate seats in Departments of Anatomy, Physiology and Pharmacology keep lying vacant and thus leading to an acute shortage of teachers in these Departments. Further, the condition of 50% marks in the entrance test was reduced to 40% because 80% of the seats reserved for PCMS doctors remained unfilled because most of them could not secure 50% marks in PGET due to the fact that they do not get academic support in rural areas. It is submitted that the postgraduate entrance examination is held for those who have already passed in MBBS examination by securing at least 50% marks and, therefore, the candidates who had not secured 50% in the postgraduate entrance examination cannot be declared to be filled in MBBS. The lowering of the marks to less than 50% has the twin objective of safeguarding the interests of weaker sections of the Scheduled Castes and Backward classes and to meet the constitutional obligation. We are afraid, the approach of the State of Punjab in this regard results in stultifying the logic. What is contended is that suitable candidates are to be selected from amongst the eligible candidates and in that regard an entrance test is being held. When such an entrance test is held, a prescription has been made by the Medical Council of India fixing a standard in terms of Entry 66, List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and which cannot be diluted at all as has been held in a series of decisions including Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another Vs.State of M.P. and others (1999) 7 SCC 120], Dr. Narayan Sharma vs. Dr. Pankaj Kumar Lehkar(2000) 1 SCC 44 and Medical Council of India vs. State of Karnataka (1998) 6 SCC 131. Therefore, it is not open to the University or the Government to dilute that standard by fixing marks lower than what is set out by Medical Council of India. If they had any difficulty they ought to have approached the medical Council of India for fixing of appropriate standards in that regard. The State Government could not unilaterally frame a scheme reducing the standard in violation of the terms of the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, which is repeatedly stated by this Court to be repository of the power to prescribe standards in Post Graduate studies subject, of course, to the control of the Central Government as envisaged in the Act constituting the Council.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Gopal D. Tirthani & Ors on 28 July, 2003
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. and others Vs. Gopal D. Pirthani, (2003) 7 SCC 83, in para 26 and36 has held as under:-
Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Anr vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 10 August, 1999
In regard to the power framing of regulation by Medical Council of India and its binding effect Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another Vs. State of M.P. and others(1999) 7 SCC 120 , in para nos. 52,57,58,59,66 and 72 has held as under:-
S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors on 18 September, 1980
In S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and others (1980) 4 SCC 379, the Supreme Court stated :
Major Suresh Chand Mehra vs Defence Secretary (U.O.I.) And Others on 13 November, 1990
In Suresh Chandra Mehra Vs. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 198, in a departmental inquiry, the delinquent officer voluntarily opted to accept the punishment awarded by General Officer Commanding(GOC). He, however, subsequently challenged the said action by filing a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution contending that the provisions of the Army Rules. 1954 were not complied with and the principles of natural justice were not observed by GOC.