Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)Section 33 in The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
D.R Pyara Lal Garg vs State Of Punjab on 18 April, 2001
In the case of Dr.Pyara Lal Garg (supra), the selection
of private respondent therein for appointment to the post of
Senior Lecturer Pediatric Surgery had been questioned on the
ground that he did not possess one of the essential qualifications
i.e. post graduate degree in the Pediatric Surgery as prescribed
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1278 of 2006 17
under the Punjab Medical Education State Service (Class-II) Rules,
1979. The selection of respondent No.6 therein was sought to be
justified in terms of contending that candidates possessing the
qualification of MS (Surgery) were being considered eligible for
appointment on the post of Senior Lecturer (Pediatric Surgery).
The selection of respondent No.6 therein was declared illegal in
the light of the statutory rules and it had been clearly noticed
therein that Appendix 'A' to the 1979 Rules wherein Department
had been defined, Surgery and Pediatric Surgery had been
reflected as separate and distinct specialties. Insofar as the
present controversy is concerned, under Rule 2 (e) of the 1978
Rules, Pathology includes Blood Bank as the relevant specialty
under Appendix 'A'.
Dhamandeep Singh And Others vs Subordinate Service Selection Board, ... on 27 September, 2000
19. Likewise, in the case of Dhamandeep Singh (supra), it
has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that where the
qualifications to a post are not prescribed in terms of statutory
rules then the eligibility conditions prescribed in the
advertisement by the competent authority had to be fulfilled by
the candidates for being considered to the relevant post.
Narender Pal And Others vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. And ... on 7 November, 2012
In the case of Narender Singh
Kundu (supra), the petitioner therein held the Degree of Bachelor
of Engineering in Clinical and Power Engineering and had applied
for the post of Assistant Engineer and was held ineligible as he did
not possess the prescribed essential qualification i.e. Degree of
Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical). In the present case,
respondent No.4 possesses the essential qualification as also the
relevant teaching experience in the specialty concerned i.e.
Pathology.
1