Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.52 seconds)Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 18 February, 2011
In the case of Chowdhary Navin
Hemabhai (supra), the Court had noticed that the fault was of the rule
making authority in not formulating the State Rules, 2008 in conformity
with the Medical Council of India Regulations, while in the case of A.
Sudha (supra), the Court found that the Principal of the institute was at
fault and he had made incorrect statements in writing, which were acted
upon by the students bona fide.
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Dr. Dinesh Kumar And Ors vs Moti Lal Nehru Medical College ... on 31 August, 1990
Again, in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar
& Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College, Allahabad & Ors. [(1990) 4 SCC 627], as
some of the States were not adhering to the prescribed schedule, this Court
took punitive action against the State of Uttar Pradesh and even
contemplated action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Right from Dr.
Pradeep Jain’s case (supra), this Court has always directed that merit
alone must be the criteria for admission to MBBS courses. To make such
admissions more subject-specific, transparent and systematic, certain
further directions were issued by this Court in Shrawan Kumar & etc. etc.
v. Director General of Health Services & Anr. & etc. [(1993) 3 SCC 332].
This Court clarified that candidates who have been allotted a seat in the
second round of counseling will have to join the college within 15 days
from the date of their personal appearance and the whole allotment and
admission process to 15 per cent seats of All India quota will be over
before the 30th September of each year, the remaining seats having been
surrendered back to the college/State.
Mridul Dhar(Minor)&Anr vs Uoi&Ors on 12 January, 2005
23. Lastly, in the case of Priyadarshini Dental College & Hospital v.
Union of India & Ors. [(2011) 4 SCC 623], this Court cautioned all
concerned that the schedule specified in Mridul Dhar (supra) should be
maintained and regulations should be strictly followed. The Court
suggested that the process of inspection of colleges, grant of permission
or renewal of permission should also be done well in advance to allow time
for setting right the deficiencies pointed out.
Dr.S.M.Naqui Imam Dental College & ... vs The Union Of India & Ors on 25 May, 2011
23. Lastly, in the case of Priyadarshini Dental College & Hospital v.
Union of India & Ors. [(2011) 4 SCC 623], this Court cautioned all
concerned that the schedule specified in Mridul Dhar (supra) should be
maintained and regulations should be strictly followed. The Court
suggested that the process of inspection of colleges, grant of permission
or renewal of permission should also be done well in advance to allow time
for setting right the deficiencies pointed out.
State Of Bihar And Ors vs Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha And Ors on 15 November, 1989
In the case of State of Bihar & Ors. v. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha & Ors.
[(1990) 4 SCC 624], a Bench of this Court took exception to the non-
adherence to the time schedules and reiterated that the admissions to
medical colleges and post-graduate courses were governed by the orders of
this Court and the regulations issued by the Medical Council of India,
which must be strictly followed. This Court issued a warning, that if
there was any violation in future, the same shall be treated as default and
viewed very seriously.
Medical Council Of India vs Madhu Singh And Ors on 11 September, 2002
Further, in the case of Medical Council of India v.
Madhu Singh & Ors. [(2002) 7 SCC 258], this Court declared two very
important principles. Firstly, it declared that mid-stream admissions
should not be permitted and secondly, noticing the practice of compassion
in review of such admissions, this Court also held that late or mid-stream
admission, even just four months after beginning of the classes, cannot be
permitted.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Gopal D. Tirthani & Ors on 28 July, 2003
25. A consistent and clear view held by this Court is that the
regulations framed by the MCI are binding and these standards cannot be
deviated from. Reference can be made to State of M.P. & Ors. v. Gopal D.
Tirthani & Ors. [(2003) 7 SCC 83 – paras 24 and 26]; Bharati Vidyapeeth
(Deemed University) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [(2004) 11 SCC
755 – para 20]; Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
[(2011) 3 SCC 617 – paras 7, 11, 12, 14 and 18] and Harish Verma & Ors. v.
Ajay Srivastava & Ors. [(2003) 8 SCC 69 – paras 14 to 21].
Bharati Vidyapeeth [Deemed ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 26 February, 2004
25. A consistent and clear view held by this Court is that the
regulations framed by the MCI are binding and these standards cannot be
deviated from. Reference can be made to State of M.P. & Ors. v. Gopal D.
Tirthani & Ors. [(2003) 7 SCC 83 – paras 24 and 26]; Bharati Vidyapeeth
(Deemed University) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [(2004) 11 SCC
755 – para 20]; Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
[(2011) 3 SCC 617 – paras 7, 11, 12, 14 and 18] and Harish Verma & Ors. v.
Ajay Srivastava & Ors. [(2003) 8 SCC 69 – paras 14 to 21].