Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (0.31 seconds)
All Gujarat Self-Finance Paramedical ... vs National Commission For Indian System ... on 8 December, 2022 cites

State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Jainarayan Chouksey . on 22 September, 2016

(30) In light of the aforesaid situation, we are of the view that Act of 2020 clearly empowers the National Commission to specify by regulations the manner of conducting common counseling, pursuant to which the National Commission having Page 47 of 51 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 02:13:51 IST 2022 C/SCA/21703/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/12/2022 made Regulation No.2022 and to be in tandem, State having amended the Rules would not take away in any manner the right of admission under management quota by the petitioner Consortium. Conducting of counseling by the State authority is in consonance with not only the comprehensive guidelines but is also in consonance with the object of the Act of 2020 for which it was brought in force with assent of the President. Said Act has clearly provided necessity of improvement, medical education system to improve the quality and affordable medical education which may be available in all parts of the country. It is also an Act for promoting equally and universally healthcare that encourages community health perspective and to make services of such medical professionals accessible and affordable to all citizens with an ultimate goal to promote the National Health. This common counseling or rather counseling by State would also to save high ethical standards are maintained in all aspects of medical services and would provide effective grievance redressal mechanism and as such when such being the laudable object for which concept of counseling is being introduced, we see no reason as to how and in what manner in Page 48 of 51 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 02:13:51 IST 2022 C/SCA/21703/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/12/2022 its entirety, right to fill up the management quota seats is taken away from the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader on instruction has stated that in no way, such right of admission is being affected except in part which relates to counseling and that too, same is with an idea to uplift and maintain merit based admissions in the medical course. Charging of fee dealing with other aspects of admission process except counseling in respect of management quota, no interference is made by bringing such amendment and as such there is neither any fundamental right nor any substantive right taken away. Hence, we are of the considered view that amendment which has been brought is neither in conflict with law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred to above nor in conflict with any fundamental rights of the petitioner's consortium, rather it is in the best interest of merit based admission process even in management quota, as such there is hardly any reason for the petitioners to raise any grievance.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 20 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next