PG MED ADMISSION
Plea in high court assails govt order on maternity leave for in-service doctors
TIMES NEWS NETWORK 03.04.2018
Chennai: Maternity leave might be a statutory right for women employees, but the state government has refused to consider such leave availed by undergraduate government doctors as continuous service period, while calculating the total service period for admission to PG medical courses. Assailing the decision, seven woman doctors have approached the Madras high court.
Justice S Vaidyanathan orally instructed the director of medical education not to precipitate the matter further and adjourned the hearing to April 3. The court passed the oral instruction, as the directorate is expected to release the merit list for PG medical admission 2018-19 any time soon.
According to Dr Aruna and six others, they were all undergraduate government doctors and were aspiring to undertake PG courses under in-service category.
“They have all cleared NEET. While so, the TN health secretary issued a prospectus dated March 15 based on the recommendations of the selection committee. In the said prospectus, through clause 9
(a) (i), the government has excluded female doctors who have taken maternity leave in the previous two years from being eligible to apply for seats. The action of the government was illegal and unconstitutional,” senior counsel P Wilson for the petitioners said.
The government has also excluded those doctors who have taken ‘earned leave’ from the purview of continuous service. Earned leave was a right bestowed on doctors who have worked for a particular number of days in a year. The government, while giving the option to the petitioners of taking earned leave, has not put the petitioners on notice that the same would be excluded from the period of continuous service. If the government had given prior notice at the beginning of the year that taking up the option of ‘earned leave’ will be considered as break in service, and equated to unauthorised absence, then the petitioners would not have taken up the earned leave option. Hence, the authorities were stopped from now putting ‘earned leave’ against the petitioners, Wilson added. Pointing out that the high court has already recognised the right of female doctors to maternity leave in a connected case arising out of similar facts, Wilson said, “In view of the court’s stand, clause 9 (a) (i) cannot be countenanced in law.”
He further added that availing of maternity leave was a constitutional right of women, falling under the right to health enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, which is also recognised as a statutory right under the Maternity Benefits Act.
Plea in high court assails govt order on maternity leave for in-service doctors
TIMES NEWS NETWORK 03.04.2018
Chennai: Maternity leave might be a statutory right for women employees, but the state government has refused to consider such leave availed by undergraduate government doctors as continuous service period, while calculating the total service period for admission to PG medical courses. Assailing the decision, seven woman doctors have approached the Madras high court.
Justice S Vaidyanathan orally instructed the director of medical education not to precipitate the matter further and adjourned the hearing to April 3. The court passed the oral instruction, as the directorate is expected to release the merit list for PG medical admission 2018-19 any time soon.
According to Dr Aruna and six others, they were all undergraduate government doctors and were aspiring to undertake PG courses under in-service category.
“They have all cleared NEET. While so, the TN health secretary issued a prospectus dated March 15 based on the recommendations of the selection committee. In the said prospectus, through clause 9
(a) (i), the government has excluded female doctors who have taken maternity leave in the previous two years from being eligible to apply for seats. The action of the government was illegal and unconstitutional,” senior counsel P Wilson for the petitioners said.
The government has also excluded those doctors who have taken ‘earned leave’ from the purview of continuous service. Earned leave was a right bestowed on doctors who have worked for a particular number of days in a year. The government, while giving the option to the petitioners of taking earned leave, has not put the petitioners on notice that the same would be excluded from the period of continuous service. If the government had given prior notice at the beginning of the year that taking up the option of ‘earned leave’ will be considered as break in service, and equated to unauthorised absence, then the petitioners would not have taken up the earned leave option. Hence, the authorities were stopped from now putting ‘earned leave’ against the petitioners, Wilson added. Pointing out that the high court has already recognised the right of female doctors to maternity leave in a connected case arising out of similar facts, Wilson said, “In view of the court’s stand, clause 9 (a) (i) cannot be countenanced in law.”
He further added that availing of maternity leave was a constitutional right of women, falling under the right to health enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, which is also recognised as a statutory right under the Maternity Benefits Act.
No comments:
Post a Comment