PIL against sureties for PG med admission
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Chennai:9.5.2019
A Tamil Nadu health department stipulation, that postgraduate medical students must furnish one of two sureties from a permanent government employee in the same or higher rank than the candidate, has been challenged in court.
A division bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice Subramonium Prasad, before which the PIL from advocate T K Saravanan came up for hearing, issued notices to the state government and directed authorities concerned to file a reply by May 15.
The petitioner, referring to a news reported in TOI dated April 23, submitted that the prospectus issued by the director of medical education (DME) required that candidates seeking admission to PG medical diploma courses must execute a bond for a sum of ₹20 lakh for the year 2019-20 and those for PG degree courses would require ₹40 lakh. They shall furnish two sureties from a permanent government employee in the same or higher rank than the candidate, the petitioner quoted the prospectus as saying.
Challenging the above clause 38(d) and (h) of the prospectus, the petitioner submitted that the candidates seeking admission for the above courses have to qualify the NEET PG 2019 besides the basic qualification of MBBS.
The petitioner submitted that there could be no objection for execution of bond by the candidate as such, but the condition that the candidate should execute a bond as above was unreasonable and irrational and unfair.
Stating that the students who are economically disadvantaged or otherwise and do not have easy access to government officials cannot dream of getting such sureties, the petitioner said it casts an unnecessary burden, more particularly on the parents and students belonging to economically and socially backward sections, causing them distress and mental agony, he said.
Alleging that this condition could lead to admissions being cancelled if such sureties could not be obtained, the petitioner submitted that some government officials can demand huge sums of money to sign the surety.
The petitioner sought a direction from the court to declare the clause 38(d) and (h) as ex facie, arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and hence illegal.
Citing a prospectus issued by the director of medical education asking candidates to produce sureties signed by government officials, the petitioner said it placed an unnecessary burden
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Chennai:9.5.2019
A Tamil Nadu health department stipulation, that postgraduate medical students must furnish one of two sureties from a permanent government employee in the same or higher rank than the candidate, has been challenged in court.
A division bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice Subramonium Prasad, before which the PIL from advocate T K Saravanan came up for hearing, issued notices to the state government and directed authorities concerned to file a reply by May 15.
The petitioner, referring to a news reported in TOI dated April 23, submitted that the prospectus issued by the director of medical education (DME) required that candidates seeking admission to PG medical diploma courses must execute a bond for a sum of ₹20 lakh for the year 2019-20 and those for PG degree courses would require ₹40 lakh. They shall furnish two sureties from a permanent government employee in the same or higher rank than the candidate, the petitioner quoted the prospectus as saying.
Challenging the above clause 38(d) and (h) of the prospectus, the petitioner submitted that the candidates seeking admission for the above courses have to qualify the NEET PG 2019 besides the basic qualification of MBBS.
The petitioner submitted that there could be no objection for execution of bond by the candidate as such, but the condition that the candidate should execute a bond as above was unreasonable and irrational and unfair.
Stating that the students who are economically disadvantaged or otherwise and do not have easy access to government officials cannot dream of getting such sureties, the petitioner said it casts an unnecessary burden, more particularly on the parents and students belonging to economically and socially backward sections, causing them distress and mental agony, he said.
Alleging that this condition could lead to admissions being cancelled if such sureties could not be obtained, the petitioner submitted that some government officials can demand huge sums of money to sign the surety.
The petitioner sought a direction from the court to declare the clause 38(d) and (h) as ex facie, arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and hence illegal.
Citing a prospectus issued by the director of medical education asking candidates to produce sureties signed by government officials, the petitioner said it placed an unnecessary burden
No comments:
Post a Comment