Verdict split, PG med intake on the edge
|
A Subramani
|
|
Chennai:
|
Third Judge To Hear Case Today
Post-graduate medical course
admissions in Tamil Nadu will remain stuck in legal quagmire for some
more time, as a specially constituted division bench of Madras high
court failed to reach a consensus on the issue and instead ended up
delivering a split verdict on Wednesday . The matter has now been
referred to Justice M Sathyanarayanan, who will be the third judge to
hear the case. His views will now decide the fate of the appeals filed
by the state government and individual candidates.
After Justice K K Sasidharan and Justice S M Subramanian adopted divergent views on the issue of Tamil Nadu government reserving seats for in-service candidates aspiring for post-graduate medical admissions and awarding incentive marks to them, the case was referred to Chief Justice Indira Banerjee to be posted before a third judge. By evening, Justice Sathyanarayanan was named as third judge, and he is to hear the appeals on Thursday .
The appeals are against an April 17 order of a single judge, who said the state government must adhere to only the MCImandated method of awarding incentive marks to in-service candidates serving in difficult and remote areas. While the state awards one mark each to all in-service, and non-service candidates as experience marks, besides additional marks to those employed in notified areas, MCI envisages award of 10% of a candidate's NEET mark per year of service in remote areas, to the maximum of 30%.
On Wednesday , Justice Sasidharan ruled that the methodology adopted by the state for giving weightage marks for inservice candidates was not in conflict with the method evolved by MCI, and said: “The MCI and the state are committed to promote rural service. The method of awarding incentive marks alone is different. The state seeks to benefit all doctors, who have opted for difficult and remote area service. The state clearly demonstrated that the method adopted all these years would benefit all doctors working in notified areas and there would not be any kind of undue advantage to a section of doctors. There is absolutely no conflict between the Central regulation and the state policy on account of different criteria followed for awarding incentive marks.“
When MCI's senior counsel sought to question clauses in the prospectus, the bench said prospectus had not been challenged at all. “We are of the view that there is no need to consider the legality and correctness of the prospectus fixing 50% each for the in-service candidates and the award of uniform marks for both service and non-service candidates for experience, in the present batch of intra-court appeals,“ said Justice Sasidharan.
Respectfully disagreeing with him, Justice S M Subramaniam ruled that three clauses in the prospectus clauses 16, 17 and 33(b) were inconsistent or repugnant to Regulation 9 of the Post-Graduate Medical Regulation, 2000 issued by the Medical Council of India, and accordingly quashed.
He directed the Tamil Nadu government to formulate the admission procedure in accordance with Regulation 9 and 9(IV) of the PG Medical Regulation, 2000 issued by MCI. He also directed the government to prepare a merit list for admission to post-graduate degree and diploma courses for all government colleges, and government seats in self-financing colleges affiliated to the state university , besides the Annamalai University . Preparation of merit list and admission process should be completed as per the original time frame, he stipulated.
After Justice K K Sasidharan and Justice S M Subramanian adopted divergent views on the issue of Tamil Nadu government reserving seats for in-service candidates aspiring for post-graduate medical admissions and awarding incentive marks to them, the case was referred to Chief Justice Indira Banerjee to be posted before a third judge. By evening, Justice Sathyanarayanan was named as third judge, and he is to hear the appeals on Thursday .
The appeals are against an April 17 order of a single judge, who said the state government must adhere to only the MCImandated method of awarding incentive marks to in-service candidates serving in difficult and remote areas. While the state awards one mark each to all in-service, and non-service candidates as experience marks, besides additional marks to those employed in notified areas, MCI envisages award of 10% of a candidate's NEET mark per year of service in remote areas, to the maximum of 30%.
On Wednesday , Justice Sasidharan ruled that the methodology adopted by the state for giving weightage marks for inservice candidates was not in conflict with the method evolved by MCI, and said: “The MCI and the state are committed to promote rural service. The method of awarding incentive marks alone is different. The state seeks to benefit all doctors, who have opted for difficult and remote area service. The state clearly demonstrated that the method adopted all these years would benefit all doctors working in notified areas and there would not be any kind of undue advantage to a section of doctors. There is absolutely no conflict between the Central regulation and the state policy on account of different criteria followed for awarding incentive marks.“
When MCI's senior counsel sought to question clauses in the prospectus, the bench said prospectus had not been challenged at all. “We are of the view that there is no need to consider the legality and correctness of the prospectus fixing 50% each for the in-service candidates and the award of uniform marks for both service and non-service candidates for experience, in the present batch of intra-court appeals,“ said Justice Sasidharan.
Respectfully disagreeing with him, Justice S M Subramaniam ruled that three clauses in the prospectus clauses 16, 17 and 33(b) were inconsistent or repugnant to Regulation 9 of the Post-Graduate Medical Regulation, 2000 issued by the Medical Council of India, and accordingly quashed.
He directed the Tamil Nadu government to formulate the admission procedure in accordance with Regulation 9 and 9(IV) of the PG Medical Regulation, 2000 issued by MCI. He also directed the government to prepare a merit list for admission to post-graduate degree and diploma courses for all government colleges, and government seats in self-financing colleges affiliated to the state university , besides the Annamalai University . Preparation of merit list and admission process should be completed as per the original time frame, he stipulated.
No comments:
Post a Comment