Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.81 seconds)Kurmanchal Inst. Of Degree & Diploma & ... vs Chancellor, M.J.P. Rohilkhand Univ. & ... on 17 May, 2007
Para 20 of the judgment in Kurmanchal Institute of Degree & Diploma (supra) is quoted as below:-
Greater Bombay Co-Op. Bank Ltd vs M/S United Yarn Tex. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 4 April, 2007
He has relies upon Kurmanchal Institute of Degree & Diploma and others vs. Chancellor M.J.P. Rohilkhand University & others 2007 (6) SCC 35 and Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd and others 2007 (6) SCC 236 for the proposition that the service rules made by the State Government will prevail over the regulations made by the Medical Council of India.
Union Of India & Others vs S. Vinodh Kumar & Others on 18 September, 2007
Shri M.C. Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel relies upon judgments of Supreme Court in Feroz Ahmad vs. Delhi Development Authority and others 2006 (10) SCC 399; Kurmanchal Institute of Degree & Diploma and others vs. Chancellor M.J.P. Rohilkhand University & others 2007 (6) SCC 35; Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd and others 2007 (6) SCC 236; Union of India vs. Sri Vinod Kumar 2007 (8) SCC 100; Dr. U.S. Sinha vs. State of UP and others 2008 (2) A.D.J. 205; Dhananjai vs. State of Uttarakhand 2008 (4) SCC 171; & K.A. Nagamani vs. Indian Airlines 2009 (5) SCC 515. It is submitted by him that where once the petitioner himself has submitted to the rules of recruitment and had tried for being recruited, it is not open to him to challenge the process of recruitment including the rules after he did not succeed in the selections.
U.S. Sinha (Dr.) vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 14 July, 2003
In K.A. Nagamani (supra); Dhanjai (supra); Union of India (supra) and Dr. U.S. Sinha (supra) the Supreme Court and this Court have refused to interfere for the benefit of the candidates, who had appeared in the selections and did not succeed. He submits that the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 was enacted at that time under Entry 11 of List II. The prescription of qualifications of service of teachers of Medical Colleges was beyond the scope of central legislation and state legislation. The Medical Council of India could only frame rules, orders or regulations in respect of service conditions of teachers either in a University, or Medical Colleges and to take admission. The Central Government had the powers at that time by virtue of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List-I to maintain the standards of education. After the 42nd amendment to the Constitution of India Entry 11 of the List II was omitted, and Entry 25 of List III was amended. The amended Entry 25 after 3.1.1987 provided for education including technical education, medical education and universities subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List-I, being vocational and technical training of labour. Thus the powers to make rules for recruitment, conditions of service of teachers of University, Medical Colleges were with the State legislature. The Medical Colleges in the State are run and managed by the State Government under UP State Universities Act, 1973. The State Government alone has powers to make rules, regulations and guidelines relating to recruitment and service conditions and other subjects in view of Section 47 (e) read with Section 7 of the UP State Universities Act.
Dhananjay Malik & Ors vs State Of Uttaranchal & Ors on 5 March, 2008
In K.A. Nagamani (supra); Dhanjai (supra); Union of India (supra) and Dr. U.S. Sinha (supra) the Supreme Court and this Court have refused to interfere for the benefit of the candidates, who had appeared in the selections and did not succeed. He submits that the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 was enacted at that time under Entry 11 of List II. The prescription of qualifications of service of teachers of Medical Colleges was beyond the scope of central legislation and state legislation. The Medical Council of India could only frame rules, orders or regulations in respect of service conditions of teachers either in a University, or Medical Colleges and to take admission. The Central Government had the powers at that time by virtue of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List-I to maintain the standards of education. After the 42nd amendment to the Constitution of India Entry 11 of the List II was omitted, and Entry 25 of List III was amended. The amended Entry 25 after 3.1.1987 provided for education including technical education, medical education and universities subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List-I, being vocational and technical training of labour. Thus the powers to make rules for recruitment, conditions of service of teachers of University, Medical Colleges were with the State legislature. The Medical Colleges in the State are run and managed by the State Government under UP State Universities Act, 1973. The State Government alone has powers to make rules, regulations and guidelines relating to recruitment and service conditions and other subjects in view of Section 47 (e) read with Section 7 of the UP State Universities Act.
K.A. Nagamani vs Indian Airlines & Ors on 27 March, 2009
In K.A. Nagamani (supra); Dhanjai (supra); Union of India (supra) and Dr. U.S. Sinha (supra) the Supreme Court and this Court have refused to interfere for the benefit of the candidates, who had appeared in the selections and did not succeed. He submits that the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 was enacted at that time under Entry 11 of List II. The prescription of qualifications of service of teachers of Medical Colleges was beyond the scope of central legislation and state legislation. The Medical Council of India could only frame rules, orders or regulations in respect of service conditions of teachers either in a University, or Medical Colleges and to take admission. The Central Government had the powers at that time by virtue of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List-I to maintain the standards of education. After the 42nd amendment to the Constitution of India Entry 11 of the List II was omitted, and Entry 25 of List III was amended. The amended Entry 25 after 3.1.1987 provided for education including technical education, medical education and universities subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List-I, being vocational and technical training of labour. Thus the powers to make rules for recruitment, conditions of service of teachers of University, Medical Colleges were with the State legislature. The Medical Colleges in the State are run and managed by the State Government under UP State Universities Act, 1973. The State Government alone has powers to make rules, regulations and guidelines relating to recruitment and service conditions and other subjects in view of Section 47 (e) read with Section 7 of the UP State Universities Act.
Vasu Dev Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 November, 2006
"20. The submission of the learned counsel that the UGC Regulations, 1985 provides for study centres of this nature cannot be countenanced. The UGC Regulations being a subordinate legislation must be read with the principal Act. The subordinate legislation will be ultra vires if it contravenes the provisions of the principal Act. [See Vasu Dev Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. 2006 (11) SCALE 108] A statutory authority, it is well known, must act within the four-corners of the statute. A fortiori it has to operate within the boundaries of the territories within which it is to operate under the statute. Such territorial jurisdiction of the University must be maintained as otherwise a chaos would be created. If distance education of such a nature is to be encouraged, the only course would be to suitably amend the provisions of the Act."
Suneeta Aggrwal vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 11 February, 2000
Shri S.D. Singh appearing for Dr. Prabal Neogi, Lecturer in Surgery, M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad, selected in the subject recruitment, submits that Dr. Ashok Kumar Tripathi does not have locus to maintain the writ petition. He participated in the selection and was not found successful. He filed the writ petition only for the purposes of making grounds to challenge if he did not succeed. He cannot be permitted to turn around and question the advertisement. Shri S.D. Singh has relied upon the judgments in Suneeta Aggarwal vs. State of Haryana & ors (2000) 2 SCC 615; Madan Lal & ors vs. State of J & K & ors (1995) 3 SCC 486 and Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & ors (1986) Supp SCC 285 in submitting that if a person, who takes a chance and has appeared in the selection process, he does not have locus to challenge the same. Even otherwise the petitioner Dr. Ashok Kumar Tripathi was over age on the date of making application for appointment. His date of birth is 27.6.1964 and thus on 1.7.2000 he was 36 years and 04 days old. He could not have applied for appointment as Lecturer as the advertisement provided that the applicant should be less than 35 years on 1.7.2000. He submits that prior to 1990 all State Medical Colleges offered two years courses of Master in Surgery. Thus Resident Registrar Demonstrator/Tutor, who were post graduate students, could only obtain two years teaching experience during their post graduation. In the year 1990 the State Government introduced a three-year residency course for all post graduate studies in UP, which was adopted by different States of the country at different point of time. Those persons, who had obtained post graduate degree under two year course, could gain minimum eligibility for appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor only after gaining one year's additional teaching experience as a Resident after completing post graduate studies. All the students, who completed post graduate studies under the three-year residency scheme, acquired three years teaching experience during such studies/course as residents. They were all issued certificate to that effect by the concerned Medical Colleges in the State of UP, and thus all those persons, who were selected including Dr. Ashok Kumar Tripathi had three years teaching experience. Dr. Prabal Neogi is M.B.B.S. from A.F.M.C. Pune; M.S. (Surgery) from Allahabad and F.R.C.S. from Edinburgh, U.K. He completed house job from All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi from February, 1989 to September, 1989 and also imparted teaching to under-graduate student at AIIMS, New Delhi, from September, 1990 for three years. He did M.S. (Surgery) from M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad under three year residency scheme/course and successfully completed three years residency. He has also worked as Resident at M.L.N. Medical College first year from 1990-91, second year from 1991-92, and third year from 1992-93. Thereafter he worked as Registrar in Surgery in Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, Allahabad from April 1994 to October 1995 and thereafter left for U.K for F.R.C.S., Edinburgh. He worked from 7.8.1986 to 4.2.1997 as S.H.O in Accident and Emergency at Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Wigan and also worked from February, 1997 to August, 1997 as S.H.O in Surgery at Argyll and Clyde Acute Hospitals Trust, Scotland. There he also imparted teaching to house surgeons and medical students from University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne Medical School. He thus has four years and eight months teaching experience.
Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986
Shri S.D. Singh appearing for Dr. Prabal Neogi, Lecturer in Surgery, M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad, selected in the subject recruitment, submits that Dr. Ashok Kumar Tripathi does not have locus to maintain the writ petition. He participated in the selection and was not found successful. He filed the writ petition only for the purposes of making grounds to challenge if he did not succeed. He cannot be permitted to turn around and question the advertisement. Shri S.D. Singh has relied upon the judgments in Suneeta Aggarwal vs. State of Haryana & ors (2000) 2 SCC 615; Madan Lal & ors vs. State of J & K & ors (1995) 3 SCC 486 and Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & ors (1986) Supp SCC 285 in submitting that if a person, who takes a chance and has appeared in the selection process, he does not have locus to challenge the same. Even otherwise the petitioner Dr. Ashok Kumar Tripathi was over age on the date of making application for appointment. His date of birth is 27.6.1964 and thus on 1.7.2000 he was 36 years and 04 days old. He could not have applied for appointment as Lecturer as the advertisement provided that the applicant should be less than 35 years on 1.7.2000. He submits that prior to 1990 all State Medical Colleges offered two years courses of Master in Surgery. Thus Resident Registrar Demonstrator/Tutor, who were post graduate students, could only obtain two years teaching experience during their post graduation. In the year 1990 the State Government introduced a three-year residency course for all post graduate studies in UP, which was adopted by different States of the country at different point of time. Those persons, who had obtained post graduate degree under two year course, could gain minimum eligibility for appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor only after gaining one year's additional teaching experience as a Resident after completing post graduate studies. All the students, who completed post graduate studies under the three-year residency scheme, acquired three years teaching experience during such studies/course as residents. They were all issued certificate to that effect by the concerned Medical Colleges in the State of UP, and thus all those persons, who were selected including Dr. Ashok Kumar Tripathi had three years teaching experience. Dr. Prabal Neogi is M.B.B.S. from A.F.M.C. Pune; M.S. (Surgery) from Allahabad and F.R.C.S. from Edinburgh, U.K. He completed house job from All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi from February, 1989 to September, 1989 and also imparted teaching to under-graduate student at AIIMS, New Delhi, from September, 1990 for three years. He did M.S. (Surgery) from M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad under three year residency scheme/course and successfully completed three years residency. He has also worked as Resident at M.L.N. Medical College first year from 1990-91, second year from 1991-92, and third year from 1992-93. Thereafter he worked as Registrar in Surgery in Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, Allahabad from April 1994 to October 1995 and thereafter left for U.K for F.R.C.S., Edinburgh. He worked from 7.8.1986 to 4.2.1997 as S.H.O in Accident and Emergency at Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Wigan and also worked from February, 1997 to August, 1997 as S.H.O in Surgery at Argyll and Clyde Acute Hospitals Trust, Scotland. There he also imparted teaching to house surgeons and medical students from University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne Medical School. He thus has four years and eight months teaching experience.