Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.27 seconds)Onkar Lal Bajaj Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Anr. Etc. Etc on 20 December, 2002
40. It is pointed out by the counsel appearing for the Government that the fixing of eligibility criteria is only on the basis of the policy decision taken by the Government. Of course, it is settled law that the scope of judicial review in the matter of policy decision is limited. But however, as laid down by the Supreme Court in ONKAR LAL BAJAJ v. UNION OF INDIA , the policy decision should stand the test of judiciousness and impartiality or arbitrary, justice, equity and fair play. In the light of the above legal situation, it is for the Government to establish that the act of increasing the minimum eligibility service from two years to three years has nexus to the object sought to be achieved, namely rendering quality medical service to the rural masses.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Gopal D. Tirthani & Ors on 28 July, 2003
(A) It is settled law that the State is entitled to lay down standards of eligibility for admission to medical courses, provided they are not inconsistent with the standards laid down by the Medical Council of India.
Harish Verma And Ors vs Ajay Srivastava And Anr on 16 September, 2003
66. On the similar facts dealt with by the Supreme Court, suitable directions have been given to the Government as well as to the Medical Council of India in HARISH VERMA v. AJAY SRIVASTAVA . The relevant observation is as follows:
Ex-Major N.C. Singhal vs Director General Armed Forces Medical ... on 17 December, 1971
In N.C. SINGHAL v. D. GENERAL, ARMED FORCES , the Supreme Court would observe as follows:
S.B. Patwardhan & Others Etc. Etc vs State Of Maharashtra & Others on 4 May, 1977
In S.B. PATWARDHAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA , the Apex Court would hold thus:
D. N. Chanchala vs State Of Mysore And Ors. Etc.(With ... on 3 May, 1971
In D.N. CHANCHALA v. STATE OF MYSORE , the Supreme Court would hold as follows:
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
In TATA CELLULAR v. UNION OF INDIA , the Supreme Court would hold thus:
Krishnan Kakkantn vs Government Of Kerala And Ors on 11 October, 1996
In KRISHNAN KAKKANTH v. GOVT. OF KERALA , the Supreme Court has held as follows:
K. Duraisamy & Anr., Etc. Etc. C vs The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 23 January, 2001
In K. DURAISAMY v. STATE OF T.N. , the Supreme Court would hold as follows: