Back
2000(5) Supreme 436
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., S. Rajendra Babu & Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Dr. Reena Singhal -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 11238 of 1995
Decided on 10-2-2000
ORDER
The High Court has found on the basis of entries on record and the admitted position of the parties before it, that Diploma in Gynaecology Course being conducted in Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi was not a course recognised by Medical Council of India and that at the time of counselling when a seat in Diploma in Gynaecology in the said College was offered to the respondent, who opted for it, she was not made aware of the position that the course was not a recognised course. It is also admitted that neither in the brochure nor in the prospectus was it disclosed by the appellants that the Diploma in Gynaecology in that College was not a course recognised by the Medical Council of India. The respondent was apparently misled. It did not behove the appellants to have kept back such vital information from the student seeking admission to the diploma course in the medical college. It was not only concealment of such a material fact in the brochure and the prospectus but, even at the time of counselling admittedly information was not imparted to the candidates. The High Court under the circumstances was justified in allowing the writ petition in the following terms :
"The writ petition is allowed and the opposite parties, particularly opposite party No. 2 is directed by a writ of mandamus to offer a course of speciality in either of the medical colleges as courses as disclosed by her in her representations dated 20.6.1994 and 10.9.1994 contained in annexures-6 and 8 respectively, to the writ petition within a period of one month from the date of service of a copy of this order."
2. In view of the admitted fact situation, we see no reason to interfere. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.
(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.
***************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
State of U.P. v. Dr. Reena Singhal, 2000(5) Supreme 436 : 2000 (2) SCSLJ 219 : 2000 (4) JT 259
00019
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
