Chennai

 

20-year-old NEET aspirant dies by suicide near Pollachi

20-year-old NEET aspirant dies by suicide near Pollachi

The boy, son of a farmer, allegedly took the extreme step over the fear of not getting a place in government colleges.

Published: 30th October 2021 10:29 AM 

By Express News Service

COIMBATORE: A 20-year-old medical aspirant died by suicide near Kinathukadavu in Coimbatore district. It is alleged that he ended his life in fear of not securing sufficient score in (The National Eligibility cum Entrance Test) NEET to get a seat in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).

The youngster was identified as Keerthivasan (20), son of a farmer named Kuppusamy from Sangarayapuram in No. 10 Muthur near Kinathukadavu. According to police, after completing his schooling two years ago, he took the NEET in 2019 and scored 128. However, as he wanted to secure a seat in the AIIMS, he aimed to score high and took the test again in 2020. Though he scored 250 in that attempt, the cutoff mark for entry into AIIMS was higher at that time. He again gave the test a try in 2021 and hoped to get sufficient score enough to make it to AIIMS, the police said.

Meanwhile, the answer key for NEET 2021 was released recently. After checking the answers, he was allegedly upset as he thought he would fail to grab a seat in AIIMS this time too, the police said. At around 3.30 pm on Friday when he was alone at home, Keerthivasan allegedly tried to end his life by suicide. Later, he was taken to Pollachi Government Hospital and then to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital for treatment. However, he died at CMCH at 11.45 pm without responding to the treatment, the police added.

Kinathukadavu police registered a case under Section of 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and initiated a probe. After postmortem, the body of the deceased was handed over to his family on Saturday.

(To overcome suicidal thoughts, contact Tamil Nadu Health Department’s helpline 104, Sneha’s suicide prevention helpline 044-24640050, or N Damodaran Centenary Lifeline Number for Suicide Prevention 1800-121-203040 or ‘Vidiyal’ suicide prevention helpline run by Coimbatore police 0422-2300999.)

With losses aplenty, traditional ‘crowd-funding’ feast 'moi virundhu' loses its sheen

With losses aplenty, traditional ‘crowd-funding’ feast 'moi virundhu' loses its sheen

A traditionally-evolved practice, moi virundhu is a feast hosted by a person or group of people who are in dire need of money.

Published: 31st October 2021 03:52 AM 

Moi refers to the cash a person gives as a gift on a birthday, wedding, or other event. (Soumyadeep Sinha)

By Sowmya Mani

Express News Service

PUDUKKOTTAI: Friday evening wasn’t pleasant for Gunasekaran (50), who sat dejected at the construction site of his house, after waiting all day for guests to arrive. His second consecutive moi virundhu, a traditional form of crowd-funding through feasts scheduled for the day, turned a damp squib. The last time he held such a feast was October 13. But, even that didn’t get him the cash gifts that were due.soumyadeep sinha

A traditionally-evolved practice, moi virundhu is a feast hosted by a person or group of people who are in dire need of money. Moi refers to the cash a person gives as a gift on a birthday, wedding, or other event. Guests at such feasts offer cash gifts, which are noted down by the hosts and repaid when the guests organise a similar feast.

Says Tamilarasan, a moi virundhu organiser in Vadakadu, “It originated in Peravurani, Thanjavur, to help people farm. Farmers would repay their guests from their profits. From Peravurani, the practice came to Alangudi and Vadakadu. I started getting people together and organising feasts as people couldn’t individually afford to spend on one.”

Gunasekaran also got into this practice about 20 years ago and has organised four feasts. “It can be done only once in four or five years. In 2011 and 2016, I received good cash gifts and have paid back everything. Now, I need money to build a house. I am disappointed as people are not giving the moi they owe me,” he explains.

On Friday, there was actually no feast, or even tea. It was more like ‘please come and give the cash you owe.’ Moi, says Tamilarasan, is also a matter of honour for many. “If don’t pay back, people will ensure everyone hears about it. It is essentially an interest-free loan,” he says. Often held in the Tamil months of Aadi or Avani (June to August), such feasts usually witness gifts of anywhere between Rs 250 and lakhs of rupees.

So, why has such the traditional form of crowd-funding lost its appeal? Locals cite a wide variety of reasons, from natural calamities like Gaja cyclone to the pandemic-induced lockdowns. “Covid rendered a cruel blow to the business. Earlier, such feasts would help people raise funds to send children abroad or get them married or build a house. Now, people can’t repay the gifts,” says Tamilarasan. Gunasekaran says he is planning to stop this practice now. “I just want to recover my money. Once it’s done, I will no longer continue this.”

Rail passengers irked as display goes defunct in Chennai Central

Rail passengers irked as display goes defunct in Chennai Central

As a result, passengers entering the station at the last minute, have to run to the concourse area to check the train position on the main display board and then proceed to catch the train.

Published: 28th October 2021 06:46 AM 

The stand that once held the digital display board at the western entrance of the Chennai Central Railway Station | Martin Louis

By Express News Service

CHENNAI: The dysfunctional information display board at the western entrance of the Chennai Central has been causing a lot of inconvenience for hundreds of passengers every day. Passengers arriving by suburban trains, cars, and two-wheelers use the western entrance to enter the Central station. A large electronic board in this part of the station that displayed information on train position remained dysfunctional for a few weeks before being removed recently.

As a result, passengers entering the station at the last minute, have to run to the concourse area to check the train position on the main display board and then proceed to catch the train. The additional time taken to find the train’s position causes a lot of inconvenience to the elderly, pregnant women and passengers carrying heavy luggage, say travellers.

A smaller LED screen has been installed, but it has been of little use as information relayed is often delayed, complain passengers. Recalling the ordeal, 65-year-old Kumaravel Sami from Villivakkam said, “On October 22, at around 6 am, there was no display in the electronic board. I ran to the main entrance to find the position. To my surprise, the Coimbatore Express, which I was supposed to board, was stationed at platform 10, just a few yards away from the display board. My wife and I boarded the train after a lot of struggle. Had the display board functioned, we would have comfortably walked to the train.”

Similarly, daily travellers from Arakkonam and Katpadi, too face inconvenience. “After parking the bike, when we enter the station, there is no information on train position on the platform. About 20 to 30 per cent of daily travellers reach the station just a few minutes before departure. Every day, we have to run hither and thither to board the train,” said S Krishnan from Katpadi.

A Chennai Division railway official said the electronic display board was removed for maintenance and will soon become functional. “We have now installed LED boards at the western entrance. Announcements on train position are given regularly. The main entrance display board is not too far from the western side.”

Adding to the rush

Since the board (displaying information on train position) at the western entrance of the Central station was not functioning, passengers entering the station in the last minute had to run to the concourse area to check train position and then proceed to catch the train

NEET-PG : Supreme Court Permits OCI Candidate To Attend Counselling In General Category

NEET-PG : Supreme Court Permits OCI Candidate To Attend Counselling In General Category

Shruti Kakkar29 Oct 2021 7:44 PM

The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim relief to an Overseas Indian Citizen(OCI) NEET PG Aspirant to appear in the counselling in the General Category at par with Indian Citizens for the purpose of NEET PG Counselling and admission for 2021-2022.

Observing that the interim relief was limited to academic year 2021-2022 only, the bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari in their order said,

"Issue notice. In the meantime, the petitioner is permitted to appear in the counselling in the General Category at par with Indian Citizens for the purpose of NEET PG Counselling and admission for 2021-2022. It is made clear that the aforesaid interim relief is limited to the academic year 2021-2022 only. Tag with Writ Petition (Civil) No 1397 of 2020 and batch."

It is pertinent to mention that the Top Court on September 30, 2021 had passed an interim order allowing Overseas Citizens of India(OCI) candidates to participate for the NEET-UG counselling in the general category for the year 2021-22.

The Top Court also issued notice in the writ petition which further challenged clause 4(ii) of the notification dated March 4, 2021 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs ("impugned clause"). The impugned clause treated Overseas Citizens of India ("OCI's") at par with Non-Resident Indians ("NRI's") with regards to All India Entrance Tests such as NEET, JEE (Mains), JEE (Advanced) or such other tests for the purpose of admissions.

The bench also tagged the petition which had also sought for quashing clause 4.1 of NEET PG Information Bulletin and Counselling Scheme 2021 with the main writ petition (Dr Radhika Thappeta v. Union of India WP (C) 1307 of 2020 ) pending before the Top Court.

The petitioner (Dr Rajitha Savya Reddy) was represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan briefed by Dubey Law Associates. The petition was filed through Advocate on Record Charu Mathur.

It was argued that the impugned clause was ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India in so far as it failed to accord parity to Indian OCI's with resident Indian citizens in all matters of entry and admission to professional colleges in India (including NEET-PG) from 2021-2022 onwards.

Averment that the Ministry of Home Affairs without providing any sufficient reasoning arbitrarily decided to implement the Impugned Clause from the current academic year, when the information regarding the same was not provided at the time of registration for NEET-PG 2021 examination was also made in the petition.

"With the impugned clause, OCIs are forcibly put at par with NRIs and made eligible for admission only against NRI seats or any supernumerary (i.e., extra) seat. This puts resident OCI students such as the Petitioners at a grave disadvantage. The petitioner has undergone many years of her schooling in India. She has also obtained her MBBS degree from India. However, it's appalling to note that the Impugned clause takes away the valuable right of the Petitioner to be treated with parity with the Indian citizens and is forced to compete for a very small number of seats in the NRI quota. By way of the Impugned Notice she will also be subjected to exorbitant admission fees that accompany the NRI quota seats, which will put her and her family under significant financial duress," petition stated.

The petitioner had further averred that the notification dated March 4, 2021 was a complete reversal of an earlier notification by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated January 5, 2009 ("2009 notification") which placed OCI's on par with Indian citizens in matter of admissions.

In this regards it was also argued in the petition that, "Therefore, the 2009 Notification specified certain rights which the person belonging from the OCI category under Section 7 A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 shall be entitled to including the right of the OCI candidate in appearing for tests to make them eligible for admission in pursuance of provisions framed thereunder. Thus, OCIs were explicitly excluded from being put on parity with NRIs in appearing for professional entrance exams. The impugned clause in the 04.03.2021 notification, as reproduced earlier, completely reverses this parity granted and puts OCIs in the same category as NRIs for the purpose of admissions to education, when the two have consistently been treated as distinct."

It was also contended that the impugned clause was also an attempt to override the judgment dated December 9, 2020 passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which held that the 2009 notification could only be interpreted to allow OCIs admission at par with Indian Citizens.

"A challenge to the judgment of the Division Bench was moved before this Hon'ble Court by way of a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Karnataka in State of Karnataka v. Pranav Bajpe and Ors. bearing SLP (C) No. 2904/2021. In view of the 04.03.2021 notification, however, SLP (C) No. 2904/2021 was withdrawn by the State of Karnataka and the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has in that regard attained finality," petition stated further in this regard.

Case Title: Dr Rajitha Savya Reddy v Union of India and Others| WP(C) No 1186/2021

Employee Can't Claim Change Of Date Of Birth As A Matter Of Right : Supreme Court

Employee Can't Claim Change Of Date Of Birth As A Matter Of Right : Supreme Court

Shruti Kakkar  30 Oct 2021 9:01 PM

The Supreme Court has observed that application for change of date of birth by an employee can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable. The Court reiterated change of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

The bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna in the present matter (Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited V. T.P. Nataraja & Ors.) was considering an appeal filed by Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited ("Corporation") assailing the Karnataka High Court's order directing the Corporation to reconsider the decision of its employee with respect to change of date of birth in service records.

The Top Court while allowing the appeal observed that, "application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation."

Factual Background

TP Nataraja ("Respondent No 1") was appointed in 1984 with Corporation. In his service record his date of birth was reflected as January 4, 1960 as per the SSLC Marks Card. After 24 years, Nataraja requested for change of date of birth from January 4, 1960 to January 24, 1961.

Nataraja thereafter filed a suit for declaration before Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore to declare that his date of birth as January 24, 1961.

The corporation relied on the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 (Act, 1974) and resolution dated May 17, 1991 by which the corporation adopted Karnataka Civil Service Rules. As per the rules request for change of date of birth in the service record could be made within a period of three years from the date of joining or within one year from commencement of the Act,1974.

The Trial Court, while relying on section 5(2) of the Act, 1974 dismissed the suit on July 28, 2013.

Aggrieved, Nataraja approached the High Court by way of Regular First Appeal. Observing that it was highly impossible for the plaintiff to avail the remedy within three years from the date of joining of service and that the resolution dated May 17, 1991 was not brought to plaintiff's notice, the High Court on March 11, 2019 allowed the appeal.

Aggrieved, the Corporation approached the Top Court.

Submissions Of Counsels

Senior Advocate Gurudas S Kannur appearing for the Corporation submitted that the High Court had committed a grave error in decreeing the suit and granting declaratory relief.

Reliance was also placed on section 5(2) of the Act, 1974 as per which no such alteration to the date of birth to the advantage of a State servant could be made unless the employee had made an application for the purpose within three years from the date on which his age and date of birth was accepted and recorded in the service register or book or any other record of service or within one year from the date of commencement of the Act, 1974, whichever was later.

It was also his contention that the High Court ought to have appreciated that the ignorance of law cannot be an excuse and that being an employee in fact he was supposed to know the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the corporation.

For allowing the present appeal assailing the High Court's order, he relied on Home Deptt. v. R.Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155; State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664; Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others v. R.Basavaraju (2016) 15 SCC 781 and Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. v. Shyam Kishore Singh (2020) 3 SCC 411.

Advocate Ashok Bannidinni appearing for Nataraja submitted that the High Court's order had been implemented in 2019 and that he had attained the age of superannuation treating and considering his date of birth January 24, 1961. Contending that there was nothing else required to be done in the present appeal, counsel submitted that the same had become infructuous.

Supreme Court's Analysis

Since the issue pertained to change of date of birth in the service record, the bench in its judgement authored by Justice MR Shah relied on Top Court's decisions on the issue of correction of the date of birth.

Relying on Home Deptt. v. R.Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155; State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664; Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others v. R.Basavaraju (2016) 15 SCC 781 and Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. v. Shyam Kishore Singh (2020) 3 SCC 411, the Top Court summarised the law on the change of date of birth as under:

(i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable;

(ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right;

(iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation.

Negating the respondent's contention on the aspect of employee not being aware of the applicability of the Act, 1974 bench observed that,

"Therefore, applying the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid decisions, the application of the respondent for change of date of birth was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also and therefore as such respondent employee was not entitled to the decree of declaration and therefore the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and not tenable at law."

The Top Court also said that Nataraja was not entitled to any relief or change of date of birth on the ground of delay and laches as the request for change of date of birth was made after lapse of 24 years since he joined the service.

"Being the employee of the corporation, he was supposed to know the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the corporation. Ignorance of law cannot be an excuse to get out of the applicability of the statutory provisions," Court further said.

Case Title: Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Nataraja & Ors.| Civil Appeal No.5720 Of 2021

Coram: Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna

Citation : LL 2021 SC 612

PG Medical Admissions : Madras HC Issues Notice On Plea Challenging 'Grossly Disproportionate' Reservation For In-Service Doctors

PG Medical Admissions : Madras HC Issues Notice On Plea Challenging 'Grossly Disproportionate' Reservation For In-Service Doctors

Aaratrika Bhaumik29 Oct 2021 10:03 PM

The Madras High Court on Wednesday issued notice in a petition challenging the extent of reservation granted to in-service doctors under the prospectus for admission to post-graduate degree or diploma courses in Tamil Nadu government medical colleges and government sets in self-financing medical colleges affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr MGR Medical University for the 2021-22 session.

The petition moved by twelve doctors challenging Clause 29 (c) of the October 6, 2021 prospectus which provide that 50 percent of seats in the State Government will be exclusively allotted to in-service candidates. Additionally, the provision also allows in-service candidates to apply in the remaining "open-category" in State government seats i.e. the 50 percent of the 50 percent government seats.

Furthermore, while applying for the aforementioned "open-category", in-service candidates can also avail of advantages accorded to them if they have served in remote or difficult or hilly areas as defined by a State-appointed committee.

Justice N Anand Venkatesh issued a notice in the matter on Wednesday and directed the government counsel to take written instructions and report back to the Court on the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on November 1.

The petitioners, represented by Advocate Suhrith Parthasarathy, contended that the extent of reservation stipulated under Clause 29 (c) dilutes any concept of merit in admissions and is also 'unjust, unfair, arbitrary and discriminatory and, ultra vires the Constitution of India.'

"In not exclusively ear-marking the selection for admission in the open category to non-service candidates and in granting weightage in the form of incentive marks to in-service candidates in the open category as well, the Respondent No. 1 to 3 have acted in an arbitrary, unreasonable, and disproportionate manner .... In permitting in-service candidates to apply in the 'open category' and further awarding incentive marks to those in-service candidates, the Respondents have taken away the very spirit and essence of an 'open category'," the plea averred.

Reliance was also placed by the petitioners on the Supreme Court judgment in State of TN v. T Dhilipkumar wherein the Apex Court had directed State to conduct a study and assess what the extent of reservation should be each year for in-service candidates and to reduce it to below 50 percent, if appropriate.

However, the petitioners pointed out that no such assessment was conducted by the State authorities till date. The State has continued to provide such reservation without determining on a yearly basis whether such reservation of 50 percent was in fact necessary to achieve the purported objective of the measure, the petitioners alleged.

"To the Petitioners' best knowledge, it is submitted that the State of Tamil Nadu is the only State in the country to have such an arbitrary policy of reserving 50% seats for in-service candidates and of further awarding those in-service candidates who apply in the 'open category' incentive marks, without so much as assigning any reason to justify the introduction of such a policy", it was contended further.

It was further submitted that although the power of state governments to grant reservations to in-service doctors has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India, such power has not been exercised by the State in a 'just, fair, and reasonable manner'.

"The allocation of the said 50% is also grossly disproportionate and in violation of well settled principles of constitutional law", the plea highlighted.

The petitioners further pointed out that as per the present Prospectus, "the Open category, will be open to both service and non-service candidates and that seats will be filled up based on the marks already defined or such criteria to be defined by the 1st Respondent from time to time as per the decision of the Committee headed by Hon'ble Thiru. A. Selvam, High Court Judge (Retd.)."

However, it was asserted that the category-wise list published in 2019 by the State government following the constitution of this Committee is also defective.

"It fails to consider a host of factors such as social and economic conditions, geographical location, accessibility and similar other relevant considerations, and accordingly, several PHCs and Government Hospitals listed under the category of Difficult Areas in Hills, Difficult Areas in Plains, Remote Area and Rural Areas in Annexures I to IV of the GO have been wrongly included," the petitioners submitted further.

Accordingly, the Court was urged to quash clause 29 (c) of the Prospectus under challenge.

Case Title: Dr. Parkaviyan R. and Ors v. State of Tamil Nadu