MCI amendment on PG admissions challenged in Madras HC

Image
Press Trust of India Chennai
Last Updated : Apr 14 2017 | 9:22 PM IST
The Madras High Court today sought the stands of the Centre and the Medical Council of India on a plea against a March 10 notification providing for common counselling for the PG medical seats in all institutions.
A bench of justices S Nagamuthu and Dr Anita Sumanth issued notices to the Centre and the MCI, seeking their stands on the plea by the city based SRM (Deemed) University.
In an interim order on the petition by the deemed medical university, the bench also asked authorities not to disturb 59 students, admitted to the university before issuance of the notification.
The court, however, made their admissions subject to the outcome of the petition and posted the matter for further hearing on April 26.
The university in its petition said the MCI on March 10 this year amended the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, adding Regulation 9A relating to the common counselling and issued the notification.
The Union Ministry of Health subsequently directed all the deemed universities to be the part of the common counselling for admission in Post Graduate courses and to surrender 50 per cent of their seats to the government quota.
The petitioner said there have been no seat sharing arrangement between the state government and the deemed universities, either for the Under Graduate or the Post Graduate courses till now.
Citing the Supreme Court orders, including that in the T M Pai case, the petitioner said it has been held that the seat sharing arrangement should be voluntary and cannot be enforced on the deemed universities.
It pleaded to the court to declare Regulation 9A as unconstitutional and violative of the Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The petitioner also submitted that 59 students were admitted by the university, based on NEET (National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test) rank list and the process had been completed on March 3 last before the amendment was made.
Hence no retrospective effect could be given to the amendment and it cannot effect admissions made prior to the date on which it came into force, it said.
If the admissions were undone, selected students who had remitted fees and joined the courses would be 'seriously affected,' the University said.

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: Apr 14 2017 | 9:22 PM IST

Next Story