Sunday, May 19, 2013

Possible Illegalities Post NEET Interim Order of SC dated 13th May 2013


Possible Illegalities Post NEET Interim Order of SC dated 13th May 2013
Background on the Issue of Admission: Framework of Admission, Concept of All India quotas, punitive action, contempt of court
Admission to professional colleges are governed by the judgment of this Court in the case of TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. vs. State of  Karnataka & Ors.[i]. [1] The framework of admissions to colleges was discussed in some detail by this Court.  However, even in the case of Dr.Pradeep Jain & Ors. vs. Union of  India  &  Ors.[ii], [2]  the concept of an All India quota came to be introduced  while  determining  the validity of a domicile requirement in  such  admissions. Earlier, 30 per cent of seats in the under-graduate courses were reserved for this purpose, which came to be modified to 15 per cent seats for All India quota in the case of Dr.Dinesh Kumar & Ors. vs. Moti Lal Nehru College, Allahabad &  Ors.[iii]. [3] In the case of Dr.Dinesh Kumar & Ors.  vs.  Moti  Lal Nehru College, Allahabad & Ors.[iv], [4] this Court  also  passed directions  in  relation  to  the  manner  of  notification/announcement  of details, results and counselling  for  admission,  in  that  case,  for  post graduate admissions, which were to be published in two successive issues  of newspapers, including one national paper in English and at least  two  local papers in the language of the State. Declaration of results would be made four weeks after the examination and academic courses were to mandatorily begin on the 2nd of May every year.  Again, in the case of Dr.Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College, Allahabad & Ors.[v], [5]  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.[vi] [6, 20] [Para 20]
Merit alone must be the criteria for Admission: transparent and systematic process of admission
Right from Dr.Pradeep Jain’s case[ii], 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. vs. Director General of Health Services & Anr. & etc.[vii] [7, 20] [Para 20]
This Court clarified that candidates who have been allotted a  seat  in  the second round of counselling 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. Various  judgments  of  this  Court have  sought  to  carry forward,  with  greater clarity, the fundamental requirement as stated in TMA Pai (supra) [1] that the admission  process  should be fair, transparent and non-exploitative. Every  subsequent  judgment  of this  Court  has  attempted  to  elucidate  one  or  other  aspect  of  this principle. [20] [Para 20]
Issue of irregularities in maintaining the prescribed schedule
Having noticed that there have been irregularities in maintaining the prescribed schedule and that the last few days of the declared schedule are primarily being utilized in an exploitative manner, on account of charging higher fees for securing admission and thereby defeating the principle of admission on merit, a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. vs. Union of India  &  Ors.[viii] [8] applied the schedule notified by the Medical Council of India (MCI) in Appendix ‘E’ of the Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2004 and directed its strict adherence. [20] [Para 20]
The  Court  noticed  that  the  holding  of  10+2  examination  and declaration of results is  also  of  importance  for  the  entire  admission process and, therefore, directed strict adherence to  the  Schedule  in  all respects and by all concerned.  The date of 30th September was stated not to be the date of normal admission but is to give opportunity to grant admission against stray vacancies.  [20] [Para 21]
The Court clarified that adherence to the time schedule by everyone was a paramount concern.  In  that  case,  the Court  issued  a  specific  direction  to  all  the   State   functionaries, particularly  the   Chief   Secretaries   and   heads   of   the   concerned Ministries/Departments  participating  in  the   States/Union Territories, adopting the time schedule and holding  the  State  examination, to  ensure declaration of results on or before 15th June, 2005. They  were  also required to ensure the  appropriate  utilization  of  All  India  quota,  to fullest extent, by timely reporting to the DGHS  by  the  Deans  of  various colleges or any other State authority, informing the DGHS of the  acceptance or rejection of seats by the students after  the  first  counselling  of  All India/State Quota. [20] [Para 21]
Need for timely LOP:
Further, this Court even took pains to declare the need for adherence to the schedule for receipt of applications  for  establishment  of  new medical colleges or seats and the process of the review  and  recommendation by the Central Government and the Medical Council of India. [20] [Para 22]
Note: (1) The information given by the applicant  in  Part  I  of  the application  for  setting  up  a  medical college that is  information regarding organisation, basic infrastructural facilities, managerial  and financial capabilities of the  applicant  shall  be  scrutinised  by  the Medical Council of India through an inspection and thereafter the Council may recommend issue of letter of intent by the Central Government.
(2) Renewal of permission shall not be granted to a medical college if the above schedule for opening a medical college is not  adhered  to  and admissions shall not be  made  without  prior  approval  of  the  Central Government.” [20] [Para 22]
Lastly, in the case of Priyadarshini  Dental  College  &  Hospital  vs. Union of India  &  Ors.[ix], [9]  this  Court  cautioned  all concerned that the schedule specified  in Mridul Dhar (8)  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. [20] [Para 23]
In the case of State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha &  Ors.[x], [10] 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.  Further, in the case of Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh & Ors.[xi], [11] 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. [20] [Para 24]
Regulations of MCI are binding:
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.  vs.  Gopal  D. Tirthani & Ors.[xii]; [12]  Bharati  Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra &  Anr.[xiii]; [13] Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat  &  Ors.[xiv] [14] and Harish Verma & Ors.  vs. Ajay Srivastava & Ors. [Para 25][xv] [15, 20]
What consequences should follow where the concerned authorities, with impunity, violate the time schedule, regulations and order of merit to give admission  to  students  in an arbitrary and nepotistic manner?
What is of greater significance is that this Court has not so far considered or stated as a principle, what consequences should follow where the Central Government, or the State Government or Medical Council of  India or  the  College  itself, with impunity, violate the time  schedule, regulations and  order  of  merit  to  give  admission  to  students  in  an arbitrary and nepotistic manner. Also, we must consider what preventive steps can be taken to avoid such repetitive and intentional defaults, as well as undue exploitation of the class of students. [20] [Para 26]
Admissions based on favouritism necessarily breach the rule of merit on the one hand, while on the other, they create frustration in the minds of the students who have attained higher rank in the competitive entrance examinations, but have not been admitted. We propose to specifically address this concern in this judgment. [20] [Para 26]
Mandatory requirement:
From the above discussion and reference to various judgments of this  Court,  it  is  clear  that  adherence  to  the  principle  of  merit, compliance  with  the  prescribed  schedule,  refraining   from   mid-stream admissions and adoption of an admission process that  is  transparent,  non-exploitative and fair are mandatory requirements of the entire scheme. [20] [Para 26]
Adverse consequences of non-adherence to the prescribed schedules:
Now, let us examine the adverse consequences of non-adherence to the prescribed schedules.  The schedules prescribed have the force  of  law,  in as much as they form part of the judgments of  this  Court,  which  are  the declared law of the land in terms of Article  141  of  the  Constitution  of India and form part of the regulations of  the  Medical  Council  of  India, which also have the force of law and are binding on all  concerned.   It  is difficult to comprehend that any authority can have the discretion to  alter these schedules to suit a given situation, whether  such  authority  is  the Medical Council  of  India,  the  Government  of  India,  State  Government, University or the selection bodies constituted  at  the  college level for allotment of seats by way of counselling.  We have no hesitation  in  clearly declaring that none of these  authorities  are  vested  with  the  power  of relaxing, varying or disturbing the time  schedule,  or  the  procedures  of admission, as provided in the  judgments  of  this  Court  and  the  Medical Council of India Regulations.  [20] [Para 27]
Inter alia, the disadvantages are:
Disadvantages of non-adherence to schedule:
Inter alia, the disadvantages are:
1)      Delay and unauthorized extension of schedules defeat the principle of admission on merit, especially in relation to preferential choice of colleges and courses.  Magnanimity in this respect, by condoning delayed admission, need not be shown by the Courts as it would clearly be at the cost of more meritorious students.  The principle of merit cannot be so blatantly compromised.  This was also affirmed by this Court in the case of Muskan Dogra & Ors.  vs. State of Punjab & Ors.[xvi]
2)      Mid-stream admissions are being permitted under the garb  of  extended counselling or by extension of periods  for  admission  which,  again,  is impermissible.
3)      The delay in adherence to the schedule, delay in the commencement  of courses etc., encourage lowering of the standards of education in the Medical/Dental Colleges  by  shortening  the  duration  of  the  academic courses and promoting the  chances  of  arbitrary  and  less  meritorious admissions.
4)      Inequities are created which are prejudicial to the interests of the students and the colleges and more importantly, affect the maintenance of prescribed standard of education.  These inequities arise because the candidates secure admission, with or without active connivance, by the manipulation and arbitrary handling of the prescribed schedules, at the cost of more meritorious candidates. When admissions are challenged, these students would run the risk of losing their seats though they may have completed their course while litigation was pending in the court of competent jurisdiction.
5)      The highly competitive standards for admission to such colleges stand frustrated because of non-adherence to the prescribed time schedules. The admissions are stretched to the last date and then admissions are arbitrarily given by adopting impermissible practices.
6)      Timely non-inclusion of the recognised/approved colleges and seats deprives the students of their right of fair choice of college/course, on the strength of their merit.
7)      Preference should be to fill up all vacant  seats,  but  under  the  garb that seats should not  go  waste,  it  would  be  impermissible  to  give  admissions in an arbitrary manner and without recourse to the  prescribed rule of merit. [20] [Para 27]
Expectations from MCI/DCI, Govt. and Universities:
The Medical and Dental Councils of India,  the  Governments  and  the Universities are expected to act in tandem with each other and  ensure  that the recognition for starting of the medical courses and grant  of  admission are  strictly  within  the  time  frame  declared  by  this  Court  and  the regulations.  It has come to the notice of this Court that despite warnings having been issued by this Court and despite the observations made by this Court, that default and non-adherence to the time schedules shall be viewed very seriously, matters have not improved. Persistent defaults by different authorities and colleges and granting of admission arbitrarily and with favouritism have often invited criticism from this Court.  [20] [Para 28]
In the case of Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. & Ors.[xvii], the Court observed that the process of counseling cannot go on continuously for a long period and the resultant chain reaction should be checked. Some seats may have to be left vacant per  compulsion,  but,  the  process  of admission  should  stand  the  test  of  rationality.  There   should   be exceptional and fortuitous circumstances to justify late admission.  [20] [Para 28]
In  the case of Chhavi Mehrotra (Miss) v. DGHS[xviii],  the  Court  was even compelled to issue notice  of  contempt  to  the  Director  General  of Health Services as to why proceedings under  the  Contempt of Courts  Act, 1971 be not taken for non-compliance with the scheme  framed  by  the  Court for consideration of applications for transfer of students between  colleges and they be not punished  accordingly. The consistent effort of this Court to direct corrective measures and adherence to law is not only being thwarted by motivated action on the part of the concerned authorities, but there has also been a manifold increase in arbitrary admissions. Repeated defaults have resulted in generating more and more litigation with the passage of time.  This Court, thus,  now  views  this  matter  with  greater emphasis  on directions that should  be  made  to  curb incidents   of disobedience. [20] [Para 28]
Obligations of the Court:
The  maxim  Boni  judicis  est  causas  litium  dirimere  places   an obligation upon  the  Court  to  ensure  that  it  resolves  the  causes  of litigation in the country. [20] [Para 29]
Need of the hour:
Thus, the need of the hour is that binding  dicta  be  prescribed  and statutory regulations be enforced, so that  all  concerned  are  mandatorily required to implement the time schedule in its true  spirit  and  substance. [20] [Para 30]
It is difficult and not even advisable to keep some windows open to meet a particular situation of exception, as it may pose impediments to the smooth implementation of laws and defeat the very object of the scheme. These schedules have been prescribed upon serious consideration by all concerned. [20] [Para 30]
They are to be applied stricto sensu and cannot be  moulded  to  suit  the convenience  of  some  economic  or  other  interest  of  any  institution, especially, in a manner that is bound to result in compromise of the  above-stated principles. Keeping in view  the  contemptuous  conduct  of  the relevant stakeholders, their cannonade on the rule of merit  compels  us  to state, with precision and esemplastically, the action that is  necessary  to ameliorate  the  process  of  selection. [20] [Para 30]
Directions of the Supreme Court:
Thus, we issue the following directions in rem for their strict compliance, without demur and default, by all concerned:
i)                    The commencement of new courses or increases in seats of existing courses of MBBS/BDS are to be approved/recognised by the Government of India by 15th July of each calendar year  for  the  relevant  academic sessions of that year.
ii)                   The Medical Council of India shall, immediately thereafter, issue appropriate directions and ensure the implementation and commencement of admission process within one week thereafter.
iii)                 After 15th July of each year, neither  the  Union  of  India  nor  the Medical or Dental Council of India shall  issue  any  recognition  or approval for the current  academic  year. If any such approval is granted after 15th July of any year, it shall only be operative for the next academic year and not in the current academic year. Once the sanction/approval is granted on or before 15th July of the relevant year, the name of that college and all seats shall be included in both the first and the second counselling, in accordance with the Rules.
iv)                 Any medical  or  dental  college,  or  seats  thereof,  to  which  the recognition/approval  is  issued  subsequent  to  15th  July  of   the respective year  shall  not  be  included  in  the  counselling  to  be conducted by the concerned authority and that college  would  have  no right to make admissions in the current  academic  year  against  such seats.
v)                  The admission to the medical or dental colleges shall be granted only through the respective entrance tests conducted by the competitive authority in the State or the body of the private colleges. These two are the methods of selection and grant of admission to these courses. However, where there is a single Board conducting the state examination and there is a single medical college, then  in  terms  of clause 5.1 of the Medical Council  of  India  Eligibility  Certificate Regulations, 2002 the admission can be given on the basis of 10+2 exam marks, strictly in order of merit.
vi)                 All admissions through any of the stated selection processes have  to be effected only after due publicity  and  in  consonance  with  the directions  issued  by  this  Court.  We vehemently deprecate the practice of giving admissions on 30th September of the academic year.
In fact, that is the date by which, in exceptional circumstances, a candidate duly selected as per the prescribed selection process is to join the academic course of MBBS/BDS.  Under the directions of this Court, second counselling should be the final counselling, as this Court has already held in the case of Ms.Neelu Arora & Anr. v. UOI & Ors.[xix] [14] and third counselling is not contemplated or permitted under the entire process of selection/grant of admission to these professional courses.
vii)               If any seats remain vacant or are surrendered from All India Quota, they should positively be allotted and admission granted strictly as per the merit by 15th September of the relevant year and not by holding an extended counselling.  The remaining time will be limited to the filling up of the vacant seats resulting from exceptional circumstances or surrender of seats. All candidates should join the academic courses by 30th September of the academic year.
viii)              No  college  may  grant  admissions  without  duly  advertising  the vacancies available and by publicizing the same through the  internet,  newspaper, on the notice board of the respective  feeder  schools  and  colleges, etc.  Every effort has to be made by all concerned to ensure that the admissions are given on merit and after due publicity and not in a manner which is ex-facie arbitrary and casts the shadow of favouritism.
ix)                 The admissions to all government colleges have to be on merit obtained in the entrance examination conducted by the nominated  authority, while in the case of private  colleges,  the  colleges  should  choose their option by 30th April of the relevant year, as  to  whether  they wish to grant admission on the basis of the merit obtained in the test conducted by the nominated State authority or they wish to follow  the merit list/rank obtained by the candidates in the   competitive examination collectively held by the nominated agency for the  private colleges. The option exercised by 30th April shall not be subject to change. This choice should also be given by the colleges which are anticipating grant  of  recognition,  in  compliance  with  the  date specified in these directions. [20] [Para 30]
Directions of SC for Authorities and other stakeholders for Admission
All  these  directions  shall  be  complied  with  by  all  concerned, including Union of India,  Medical  Council  of  India,  Dental  Council  of India, State Governments, Universities and medical and dental  colleges  and the management  of  the  respective  universities  or  dental  and  medical colleges.   [20] [Para 31]
Warning for consequences and penal action:
Any default in compliance with these conditions or attempt to overreach these directions shall, without fail, invite the following consequences and penal actions: [20] [Para 31]
a.      Everybody, officer or authority who  disobeys  or  avoids  or  fails  to strictly comply with these directions stricto sensu shall be  liable  for action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts  Act. Liberty is granted to any interested party to take out the contempt proceedings before the High Court having jurisdiction over such Institution/State, etc.
b.      The person, member or authority found responsible for any violation shall be departmentally proceeded against and punished in accordance with the Rules.  We make it  clear  that  violation  of  these  directions  or overreaching them  by  any  process  shall  tantamount  to  indiscipline, insubordination, misconduct and  being  unworthy  of  becoming  a  public servant.
c.       Such defaulting authority, member or body shall also be liable for action by and personal liability to third parties who might have suffered losses as a result of such default.
d.      There shall be due channelization  of  selection  and  admission  process  with full cooperation and coordination between the Government of India, State Government,  Universities,  Medical  Council  of  India  or  Dental Council of India and the colleges concerned. They shall act in tandem and strictly as per the prescribed schedule.  In  other  words,  there should be complete harmonisation with a view to form a  uniform  pattern for concerted action,  according  to  the  framed  scheme,  schedule  for admission and regulations framed in this behalf.
e.      The college which grants admission for the current academic year, where its recognition/approval is  granted  subsequent  to 15th July  of  the current   academic   year, shall  be  liable   for  withdrawal   of recognition/approval on this ground,  in  addition  to  being  liable  to indemnify such students who are denied admission or  who  are  wrongfully  given admission in the college.
f.        Upon the expiry of one week after holding of the second  counselling,  the unfilled seats from all quotas shall be deemed to have  been  surrendered in favour of  the  respective  States  and  shall  be  filled  thereafter strictly on the basis of merit obtained in the competitive entrance test.
g.      It shall be mandatory on the part  of  each  college  and  University  to  inform the State and the Central Government/competent  authority  of  the seats which are lying vacant after each counselling and they shall furnish the complete details, list of seats filled and vacant in  the  respective states, immediately after each counselling.
h.      No college shall fill up its seats in any other manner. [20] [Para 31]
Triple Test i.e. transparent, fair and non-exploitatory selection/admission processes:
Having dealt with, in general, the directions that  this  Court  would issue  to  prevent  the  evils  of  arbitrariness  and  discrimination  from creeping into these selection/admission processes, which are required to  be transparent, fair and non-exploitatory, we shall now proceed  to  deal  with the facts of the present case. [Para 32]
SC concluded that The present case is a glaring example of  calculated  tampering  with the schedule specified under the  regulations  and  the  judgments  of  this Court,  with  a  clear  intent  to  grant  admission  to less  meritorious candidates over and above  the  candidates  of  higher  merit. To put it simply, it is a case of favouritism and arbitrariness. This also chronicles how, either way, the careers of the students are jeopardised. [20] [Para 33][xx]
References:
1.       TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. vs. State of  Karnataka & Ors. [(2002) 8 SCC 481]
2.       Dr.Pradeep Jain & Ors. vs. Union of  India  &  Ors.  [(1984) 3  SCC 654]
3.       Dr.Dinesh Kumar & Ors. vs. Moti Lal Nehru College, Allahabad &  Ors. [(1985) 3 SCC 22]
4.       Dr.Dinesh Kumar & Ors.  vs.  Moti  Lal Nehru College, Allahabad & Ors. [(1987) 4 SCC 459]
5.       Dr.Dinesh Kumar & Ors. vs. Moti Lal Nehru College, Allahabad & Ors. [(1990) 4  SCC 627]
6.       The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
7.       Shrawan Kumar & etc.  etc. vs. Director General of Health Services & Anr. & etc.  [(1993) 3  SCC 332]
8.       Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. vs. Union of India  &  Ors. [(2005) 2 SCC 65]
9.       Priyadarshini Dental College & Hospital  vs. Union of India  &  Ors. [(2011)  4  SCC  623]
10.    State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha &  Ors. [(1990) 4 SCC 624]
11.    Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh & Ors.  [(2002) 7  SCC  258]
12.    State of M.P. & Ors.  vs.  Gopal  D. Tirthani & Ors. [(2003) 7 SCC 83 – paras 24  and  26]
13.    Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra &  Anr. [(2004) 11 SCC 755 – para 20]
14.    Muskan Dogra & Ors.  vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2005) 9 SCC 186].
15.    Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat  &  Ors. [(2011) 3 SCC 617 – paras 7, 11, 12, 14 and 18]
16.    Harish Verma &  Ors.  vs. Ajay Srivastava & Ors. [(2003) 8 SCC 69 – paras 14 to 21]. [Para 25]
17.    Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 355]
18.    Chhavi Mehrotra (Miss) v. DGHS [(1994) 2 SCC 370]
19.    Ms.Neelu Arora & Anr. v. UOI & Ors. [(2003) 3 SCC 366]
20.    Swatanter Kumar, J. Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhatishgarh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4318 of 2012, (Arising out of SLP (C) No.27089 of 2011), with Civil Appeal No. 4319 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29306 of 2011), Date of Judgment: 08.05.2012



[i] TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. vs. State of  Karnataka & Ors. [(2002) 8 SCC 481]
[ii] Dr.Pradeep Jain & Ors. vs. Union of  India  &  Ors.  [(1984)  3  SCC  654]
[iii] Dr.Dinesh Kumar & Ors. vs. Moti Lal Nehru College, Allahabad &  Ors. [(1985) 3 SCC 22]
[iv] Dr.Dinesh Kumar & Ors.  vs.  Moti  Lal Nehru College, Allahabad & Ors. [(1987) 4 SCC 459]
[v] Dr.Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru College, Allahabad & Ors. [(1990) 4  SCC  627]
[vi] The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
[vii] Shrawan Kumar  &  etc.  etc. v. Director General of Health Services & Anr. & etc.  [(1993) 3  SCC  332]
[viii] Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. vs. Union of India  &  Ors. [(2005) 2 SCC 65]
[ix] Priyadarshini  Dental  College  &  Hospital  v. Union of India  &  Ors. [(2011)  4  SCC  623]
[x] State of Bihar & Ors. v. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha &  Ors. [(1990) 4 SCC 624]
[xi] Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh & Ors.  [(2002) 7  SCC  258]
[xii] State of M.P. & Ors.  v.  Gopal  D. Tirthani & Ors. [(2003) 7 SCC 83 – paras 24  and  26]
[xiii] Bharati  Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra &  Anr. [(2004) 11  SCC 755 – para 20]
[xiv] Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat  &  Ors. [(2011) 3 SCC 617 – paras 7, 11, 12, 14 and 18]
[xv] Harish Verma &  Ors.  vs. Ajay Srivastava & Ors. [(2003) 8 SCC 69 – paras 14 to 21]. [Para 25]
[xvi] Muskan Dogra & Ors.  vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2005) 9 SCC 186].
[xvii] Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 355]
[xviii] Chhavi Mehrotra (Miss) v. DGHS [(1994) 2 SCC  370]
[xix] Ms.Neelu Arora & Anr. v. UOI & Ors. [(2003) 3 SCC 366]
[xx] Swatanter Kumar, J. Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhatishgarh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4318 of 2012, (Arising out of SLP (C) No.27089 of 2011), with Civil Appeal No. 4319 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29306 of 2011), Date of Judgment: 08.05.2012
 Dr.Mukesh Yadav
B.Sc., M.B.B.S., M.D., M.B.A. (HCA), LL.B., PGDHR
Editor, Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine
Professor and Head of Department,
Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology
School of Medical Sciences & Research, Sharda University
Off. Add.: Plot No. 32, 34, Knowledge Park 3, Greater Noida
Gautam Budha Nagar, NCR, Delhi, pin: 201306
Mobile: +91-8527063514
Email: drmukesh65@yahoo.co.in
Web address: http://www.qme.co.in
Grouphttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Quality_of_Medical_Education



3 comments:

Amit Sahu said...

hi friends.......
if you are interested in on-line courses like BCA, BBA, MCA, MBA etc.and
you have no time to take regular classes don't worry you can join our on-line site : http://www.iipt.org.in

educationlenz said...

such a great information
Top Colleges in India | Higher Education in India

Studentsassignmenthelp said...

There are best quality assignment for students which provide thesis writing services, essay writing , report writing , According to student subjects.Thesis writing services