MBBS ADMISSION FRAUD

 

Similar questions in PG exam paper confound students

Similar questions in PG exam paper confound students

 RGUHS Alters One Question In 15 Minutes

 Farheen.Hussain@timesgroup.com

 Bengaluru : A repeat of questions in the final PG general surgery examination created confusion among candidates on Saturday. While Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) claimed to have changed the question within 15 minutes of the goof up being flagged, students said the error robbed them of precious time. 

A student told STOI the third and fourth questions (‘unilateral hydrocephalus’ and ‘surgery for hydrocephalus’) were the same in their general surgery paper IV (QP code: 8284). 

“Both these questions required the same answer and many of us had even started writing it. Then the third question was changed. But we had already wasted our time and energy writing the answer,” he said. Another student said such an error at this level is not acceptable.

 “While the third question was about a brain condition, the next question was about s urgery for the same condition. The answer to both is almost the same. After the issue was raised, the third question was changed to a condition of the kidney. Our question is, how do they set the paper in such a negligent manner? Why do they add to our exam anxieties with these errors?” 

However, RGUHS registar Dr Ramakrishna Reddy clarified the two questions were not the same but only on the same topic. “We, however, changed the question within 15 minutes through online transmission. The third question was changed to ‘unilateral hydronephrosis’. 

It is a routine incident and there was no time wasted. In fact, it is more of a spelling correction,” he said, sharing screenshots of an email sent to the team about corrections in the said question paper. “We changed the question immediately to a different topic. There is no question about students writing the answers as we made the corrections within 15 minutes,” he said.  

In another faux pas, the PG anesthesiology paper I (QP code: 7291) was used as it is by Dr NTR University of Health Sciences in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. While the paper was held at RGUHS on May 7, the examination at Vijayawada University was on May 13. Both papers, with 10 essay-type questions for 100 marks, have the same questions. Both universities said it was an inadvertent error caused by the paper setter. 

While a source at Dr NTR University of Health Sciences said it was not a copy of the RGUHS question paper, RGUHS registrar Dr Ramakrishna Reddy said the  

The question paper used at NTR University was also used by RGUHS on May 7 agency that sets the question paper might have set it for the AP university as well.

RGUHS OTHER UNIVERSITIES

 

Woman gets divorce on grounds of husband’s imprisonment

Woman gets divorce on grounds of husband’s imprisonment 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 

Ahmedabad : A Gandhinagar court has granted divorce to a woman because her husband has been imprisoned in a murder case and would not be able to perform marital obligations in future. The divor ce petition was filed by the woman, who lives with her son at her maternal home in Hudko village of Gandhinagar district. She said that she got married to a man from Surendranagar district in 2014.

 She was dissatisfied with the husband’s behaviour and thinking. She alleged that as disputes between them arose, the husband used to beat her after consuming alcohol and her in-laws too joined him in the tortur . She was allegedly thrown out of her matrimonial home in June 2015. I

n 2016, the husband was jailed in connection with a murder case registered with Visnagar police station. Since then, he has been lodged in a jail in Mehsana and the trial against him is pending. The woman filed divorce petition six months after the husband was jailed. The court issued a notice to the husband, which was served on him in prison but he did not respond. After perusing the material placed by the woman, the court said, 

“It is proved that even after the intervention of those n ear and dear, it seems that petitioner is unable to stay together; that the opponent (husband) is unable to fulfil his marital obligations due to his imprisonment; that even in future, there is no possibility for reunion because of opponent’s imprisonment. Therefore, this is the fit case for granting the relief as prayed for. ” While dissolving the marriage, the court said, “Looking at the young age of the parties, it seems that for the better future of the petitioner (wife) and her child, the divorce petition is required to be allowed. ”

After child via surrogacy, woman fights for leave

After child via surrogacy, woman fights for leave

 Saeed.Khan@timesgroup.com

 Ahmedabad : A postal department employee has moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) complaining that she has not been granted maternity leave because her child was born through surrogacy. She urged the tribunal to direct the department not to take any action against her by treating her absent on duty. On her argument that if paternity leave is granted to male employees, there is no point in denying maternity leave to her for having a child through surrogacy, the CAT has issued notice to the Centre and the chief post master general and stayed the department’s decision of not granting maternity leave to the employee. 

The tribunal has also stayed any departmental action against her by treating her absent on duty, said the woman’s advocate P H Pathak. In this case, a resident of Isanpur who works as postal assistant since 2007, Dharmishthaben Sirsikar (35), had requested her department for sixmonth maternity leave from February 16 to August 12 submitting that she had become a mother via surrogacy on February 16. On March 21, the department rejected her request saying that there is no provision for maternity leave in cases the birth of the child took place through surrogacy.  

‘Woman can’t be victimized on the ground of surrogacy’ Against this order, the employee moved CAT seeking declaration that the department is not justified in saying that there is no provision for sanctioning maternity leave to a mother whose child is born through surrogacy. 

She has also sought to restrain the department from passing any adverse order against her and not to treat her as absent. The applicant has termed the department’s decision as arbitrary, illegal, sans any application of mind and violative of constitutional provisions. The department’s order does not give any reason and it is contrary to the aim and object of provisions of Maternity Leave Benefits Act, 1961. In her application, she submitted, “To distinguish between a mother who begets a child through surrogacy and a natural mother, who gives birth to a child, would result in insulting womanhood and the intention of a woman to bring up a child begot- ten through surrogacy. Motherhood never ends on the birth of the child and a commissioning mother cannot be refused maternity leave. 

A woman cannot be discriminated against, as far as maternity benefits are concerned, only on the ground that she has obtained the baby through surrogacy. A newly born child cannot be left at the mercy of others as it needs rearing and that is the most crucial period during which the child requires care and attention of his mother.

RENAMING OF TIRUVARUR SOUTH STREET ON HOLD

 

RAIN NEWS .. KERALA