<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1986 (3) TMI 327 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168858</link>
    <description>Rule C(6)(ii) of the Maharashtra medical college admission rules was construed to grant transferred Central Government servants&#039; children two seats in each Government medical college, not two seats across all colleges collectively. The court read the phrase &quot;in all Government Medical Colleges&quot; with the immediately following words &quot;at the respective medical colleges,&quot; holding that the concession operated college-wise. The admission scheme, including the Dean&#039;s role under Rule E(3), supported that interpretation, and the omission of the earlier words &quot;taken together&quot; indicated a deliberate change from the prior regime. The contrary view of the High Court was rejected, and the appellant was held entitled to admission on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2015 10:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=380199" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (3) TMI 327 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168858</link>
      <description>Rule C(6)(ii) of the Maharashtra medical college admission rules was construed to grant transferred Central Government servants&#039; children two seats in each Government medical college, not two seats across all colleges collectively. The court read the phrase &quot;in all Government Medical Colleges&quot; with the immediately following words &quot;at the respective medical colleges,&quot; holding that the concession operated college-wise. The admission scheme, including the Dean&#039;s role under Rule E(3), supported that interpretation, and the omission of the earlier words &quot;taken together&quot; indicated a deliberate change from the prior regime. The contrary view of the High Court was rejected, and the appellant was held entitled to admission on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168858</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>