Why is only TN opposing NEET, asks HC

A Subramani

Chennai:





A practising doctor's writ petition against the Centre's circular which said all institutions offering post-graduate medical courses, including deemed universities, should surrender 50% of seats to the government that would conduct counselling for all seats, has prompted the Madras high court to ask why Tamil Nadu alone was opposing NEET and seeking exemption.

“When all other states have not objected (to NEET), what is the reason for Tamil Nadu alone opposing it,“ asked Justice N Kirubakaran on Wednesday
.
Hearing a batch of writ petitions, including one filed by Dr M Kamaraj of Namakkal, the judge wondered what the Medical Council of India (MCI) was doing when institutions violated its guidelines and collected capitation fees. “Is it not your duty to monitor such institutions, as you are an authority incharge of giving approval to these institutions?“ he asked.

Some petitions sought a direction to the state health secretary to `appropriate' 50% of seats of recognized post-graduate and diploma courses in each specialty from all private colleges. Alleging that state health department and directorate of medical education were not taking steps to get 50% of seats from private colleges and universities, in order to allot those seats to rankers of National Board of Examinations, a petition said many private institutions had already begun receiving applications and were filling seats too. The health department had failed in its duty in this regard, it said.

When told that the TN assembly had already passed two bills to keep the state outside ambit of NEET, the judge asked if the state was not ashamed of opposing NEET. “Do you underestimate the ability of our students and the standard of education in Tamil Nadu?
Do you feel that our students will not do better than any other students of other states?“ Justice Kirubakaran then directed MCI to reply to the following queries:

 How many seats have been approved in PGdiploma courses in each institution? How the seats were filled in 2016-17 in these institutions? Whether or not the MCI ensured the seats were filled as per inter se merits, regulations and also as per quota fixed by the MCI? After impleading suo motu the Union health secretary as party to the case, Justice Kirubakaran asked: “What is the procedure to be followed for 2017-18 regarding sharing of seats, and on what basis are the seats to be filled by institutions?“ How much did the government spend on medical students each year, he asked.