Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.28 seconds)The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Gopal D. Tirthani & Ors on 28 July, 2003
47. Therefore, from a careful analysis of the decision of the Constitution
Bench in T.N. Medical Officers Association case vis-a-vis the decisions in Gopal
Tirthani and Satyabatra Sahoo's case clearly reveal that the scope, which was
kept minimised in Gopal Tirthani and Satyabatra Sahoo's case has been expanded
by the Constitution Bench in the decision in T.N. Medical Officers Association
case. The reasons for expanding the scope and armouring the State with the
necessary ammunition to lay down relevant guidelines for filling up the seats in
the state-wise quota for the in-service candidates by awarding incentive marks
and considering the said marks even while considering their case in open
category is only with the laudable object of enabling the in-service doctors, to
pursue higher studies and, thereafter to serve in rural and difficult areas, which
otherwise would weaken the public health system and make medical assistance a
distant dream for such of those general public co-habiting in
difficult/hilly/remote/rural areas.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K. Duraisamy & Anr., Etc. Etc. C vs The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 23 January, 2001
47. Therefore, from a careful analysis of the decision of the Constitution
Bench in T.N. Medical Officers Association case vis-a-vis the decisions in Gopal
Tirthani and Satyabatra Sahoo's case clearly reveal that the scope, which was
kept minimised in Gopal Tirthani and Satyabatra Sahoo's case has been expanded
by the Constitution Bench in the decision in T.N. Medical Officers Association
case. The reasons for expanding the scope and armouring the State with the
necessary ammunition to lay down relevant guidelines for filling up the seats in
the state-wise quota for the in-service candidates by awarding incentive marks
and considering the said marks even while considering their case in open
category is only with the laudable object of enabling the in-service doctors, to
pursue higher studies and, thereafter to serve in rural and difficult areas, which
otherwise would weaken the public health system and make medical assistance a
distant dream for such of those general public co-habiting in
difficult/hilly/remote/rural areas.
The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Nasir Ahmad And Ors. vs King-Emperor on 12 May, 1927
clause cannot be interpreted to mean that the State is denuded
of the power to make a separate channel of admission to the
said courses for in-service doctors from the State merit list. This
is an issue of legislative competence and the Nazir Ahmad [Nazir
Ahmad v. King Emperor, 1936 SCC OnLine PC 41 : (1935-36) 63
IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253 (2)] dictum does not come into conflict
48/60
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. Nos.22937-25749/2021
with the interpretation we are giving to this clause. Application
of that principle solely on the basis of a Union legislation,
without examining the scope of the State's legislative power in
the given context, would be contrary to the constitutional
scheme in having concurrent field of legislation. The said sub-
clause does not prescribe specific bar on the State authorities in
providing for such reservation or such separate entry channel.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
Rishiraj College Of Dental Sciences & ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh . on 17 September, 2015
26. The Medical Council of India, for the present, insists,
through its Regulations, on a common entrance test being
conducted whereat the minimum qualifying marks would
be 50%. The State of Madhya Pradesh must comply with
the requirements of the Regulations framed by the
Medical Council of India and hold a common entrance test
even if there are two separate channels of entry and allow
clearance only to such candidates who secure the
minimum qualifying marks as prescribed by MCI
Regulations. If the State has a case for making a departure
from such rule or for carving out an exception in favour of
any classification then it is for the State to represent to the
Central Government and/or the Medical Council of India
and make out a case of justification consistently with the
aforequoted observation of this Court in Dayanand
Medical College & Hospital case [State of Punjab v.
Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, (2001) 8 SCC 664 : 1
SCEC 940] .
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of U.P And Ors vs Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan on 16 August, 2016
24. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that nowhere the petitioners question the reservation granted to in-service
candidates, nor they question the incentive marks granted to persons rendering
service in difficult/hilly/remote/rural areas amongst the persons in-service. The
grievance of the petitioners is only to the limited extent of the said incentive
marks being considered for drawing the merit list in the open category, as that is
not what is envisaged under Regulation 9 (4) and the proviso thereto. It is the
further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in T.N. Medical Officers Association case, while held that
Regulation 9 (4) to be constitutionally valid, had only spoken about the two
modes of selection and in fact, the Constitution Bench, in the said decision, has
affirmed the ratio laid down in Duraiswamy, Gopal Trithani and Satyabatra
Sahoo's case and had overruled only that portion of the decision in Dinesh Singh
Chauhan's case.