Doctors file PIL against age limit for post of asst prof

Image
Press Trust of India Chennai
Last Updated : Sep 15 2018 | 8:35 PM IST

Various doctors have filed a petition in the Madras High Court against a clause of the Medical Council of India which prescribes 40 as the maximum age limit for appointment to the post of senior resident or assistant professor in medical colleges.

The public interest litigation (PIL) petition came up recently before a bench, comprising Justices S Manikumar and Subramanioum Prasad.

The bench posted the matter for further hearing on September 19 after Assistant Solicitor General Karthikeyan, appearing on behalf of the MCI, sought time to file a counter.

The council had brought an amendment vide Clause 6 of Schedule I of the Minimum Qualification for Teachers Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998, with effect from June 8, 2017, prescribing the age limit as 40 for posting as senior resident.

The petitioners, all government doctors, submitted that they got admission to PG degree courses before the amendment.

They said the special rules of the Tamil Nadu Medical Services mandate that the post of the senior resident and the assistant professor must be held by a MBBS degree-holder who must have done PG work in a teaching institution for a period of not less than two years or he must possess a super speciality degree.

Further, the petitioners said there was no age limit prescribed when they joined the PG medical courses.

The government had forwarded a proposal to the Centre on November 27, 2017, to drop the criteria of age limit, making it clear it would affect the entire medical administration and further affect the career of the doctors who are encouraged to serve in rural/hilly/remote areas by awarding incentive marks.

Besides, the government had mentioned that the cap on age limit would be counterproductive to its policy decision, especially when seen against the MCI relaxing retirement age for faculty in medical colleges to 70 years.

The petitioners sought an interim injunction, besides declaring the clause as "unconstitutional, ultra vires, discriminatory and illegal.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Sep 15 2018 | 8:35 PM IST

Next Story