Verdict On Norms For Incentives In Postgraduate Medical Admissions Today
The Madras High Court yesterday reserved its order on fixing norms for according incentive marks to the in-service government doctors in PG course admission, an issue which had yielded the court's split verdict early this week. Justice M Sathyanarayanan, whom the issue had been referred to after the split verdict by the division bench of justices K K Sasidharan and S M Subramniam, reserved his order for tomorrow after hearing arguments by various counsel.
The division bench had on May 3 delivered the split verdict on appeals challenging a single judge order which had upheld the Medical Council of India regulations on awarding incentive marks and reserving 25 per cent of seats to in- service candidates for the PG medical admissions.
Appearing for the MCI, counsel Vijay Narayan argued that the incentive marks for the government doctors for admission to the post-graduate medical courses was all right, but not the reservation of seats for it.
Reserving 50 per cent of the seats in government quota for the in-service candidates would directly impinge on the MCI's mandate to maintain standards.
He also submitted that linking the incentive marks with NEET-PG marks obtained by candidates concerned is a must.
Stating that if it was not done, each state would form its own system of allotment of marks ranging from one to 10 which would affect the MCI's objective on standardisation.
Arguing that the MCI's word to give 10 to 30 per cent marks linked to NEET-PG score was final, he said no state government could have different norms.
Referring to the Clause 16 of the state prospectus, which was quashed by one of the judges of the division bench, he submitted that the clause is illegal because it allots one mark per year to all candidates, irrespective of whether he is in government service or private service which is against the MCI norms.
"You need not work in rural areas, nor need to be in the government service, you will still get full 10 marks at the end of 10 years," he said.
Assailing Clause 33 of the prospectus, which reduces all marks to 90 per cent, he said it was clearly discriminatory.
A fresh non-service candidate would suffer 10 mark difference, as his mark too would be reduced to 90 though he would get zero as experience incentive, he argued.
Responding to the arguments, senior advocate P Wilson said the prospectus had not been challenged at all. Therefore one of the two judges who delivered the split verdict ought not to have quashed three clauses in it, he said.
Click here for more Education News(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)