HC bats for establishing more medical education institutions
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Chennai: 21.05.2018
Batting for establishing more medical education institutions, both at the state and central level Madras high court has said, “It is imminent on account of the current needs of the nation and that the governments are expected to do so by performing their duties as expectedunder theDirectivePrinciples of State Policy enumerated in the Constitution.”
Justice S M Subramaniam made the observation while dismissing a batch of pleas moved by MBBS doctors seeking to include their names in the merit list for admission to PG medical courses under state quota. Their plea was dismissed since they have already allotted seats under All-India quota.
“Right to participate in the process of admission is a fundamental right. Equal opportunity to participate in the admission process is a constitutional mandate. However, such an opportunity providedto participate in the process of admission or selection will not confer any legal right for choosing a place of their choice or a branch, which is not contemplated either under the statute or under the prospectus issued to these students.They had acceptedthe prospectus and the terms and conditions stipulated therein. In the event of any violation of terms and conditions stipulated in the prospectus, then alone the petitioners can move a petition for redressal of their grievances. Contrarily, they cannot come out with a writ petition by stating that more chances are to be given to them for purpose of choosing the branch of study or choice of their place,” Justice Subramaniam said.
According to the petitioners, they had not been given an opportunity to avail the state quota as per the scheme of admission provided for PG degree/diploma courses, since the process was delayed by the state government.
Refusing to accept the contentions, the judge pointed out that the state is not responsible for non-publication of state merit rank list to fill up its quota. The delay was actually because of pendency of litigations before this court.
This being the factum of the case, this court is of an undoubted opinion that the writ petitionershave notestablished any legal right, to consider the reliefs, as such, sought for in these batch of writ petitions. The grounds raisedin respectof the choice of the students are also untenable, the court concluded.
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Chennai: 21.05.2018
Batting for establishing more medical education institutions, both at the state and central level Madras high court has said, “It is imminent on account of the current needs of the nation and that the governments are expected to do so by performing their duties as expectedunder theDirectivePrinciples of State Policy enumerated in the Constitution.”
Justice S M Subramaniam made the observation while dismissing a batch of pleas moved by MBBS doctors seeking to include their names in the merit list for admission to PG medical courses under state quota. Their plea was dismissed since they have already allotted seats under All-India quota.
“Right to participate in the process of admission is a fundamental right. Equal opportunity to participate in the admission process is a constitutional mandate. However, such an opportunity providedto participate in the process of admission or selection will not confer any legal right for choosing a place of their choice or a branch, which is not contemplated either under the statute or under the prospectus issued to these students.They had acceptedthe prospectus and the terms and conditions stipulated therein. In the event of any violation of terms and conditions stipulated in the prospectus, then alone the petitioners can move a petition for redressal of their grievances. Contrarily, they cannot come out with a writ petition by stating that more chances are to be given to them for purpose of choosing the branch of study or choice of their place,” Justice Subramaniam said.
According to the petitioners, they had not been given an opportunity to avail the state quota as per the scheme of admission provided for PG degree/diploma courses, since the process was delayed by the state government.
Refusing to accept the contentions, the judge pointed out that the state is not responsible for non-publication of state merit rank list to fill up its quota. The delay was actually because of pendency of litigations before this court.
This being the factum of the case, this court is of an undoubted opinion that the writ petitionershave notestablished any legal right, to consider the reliefs, as such, sought for in these batch of writ petitions. The grounds raisedin respectof the choice of the students are also untenable, the court concluded.
No comments:
Post a Comment