<?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>2012 (3) TMI 651 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287874</link>
    <description>Interim stay on a State notification governing weightage and reservation in post-graduate medical admissions was upheld because the record disclosed a prima facie case of arbitrariness and an arguable constitutional challenge to the geographical classification of remote and difficult areas. The challenged scheme also raised a plausible issue whether the notification conferred retrospective benefit on a selected class of doctors. The absence of a detailed discussion on balance of convenience or irreparable injury did not vitiate the interlocutory order where the materials supported the exercise of discretion. No ground was found for appellate interference, and the interim protection granted by the single judge was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 May 2020 16:58:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=612324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (3) TMI 651 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287874</link>
      <description>Interim stay on a State notification governing weightage and reservation in post-graduate medical admissions was upheld because the record disclosed a prima facie case of arbitrariness and an arguable constitutional challenge to the geographical classification of remote and difficult areas. The challenged scheme also raised a plausible issue whether the notification conferred retrospective benefit on a selected class of doctors. The absence of a detailed discussion on balance of convenience or irreparable injury did not vitiate the interlocutory order where the materials supported the exercise of discretion. No ground was found for appellate interference, and the interim protection granted by the single judge was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>