- Home
- News
- Blog
- state news
- Andaman And Nicobar Islands
- Andhra Pradesh
- Arunachal Pradesh
- Assam
- Bihar
- Chandigarh
- Chattisgarh
- Dadra And Nagar Haveli
- Daman And Diu
- Delhi
- Goa
- Gujarat
- Haryana
- Himachal Pradesh
- Jammu & Kashmir
- Jharkhand
- Karnataka
- Kerala
- Ladakh
- Lakshadweep
- Madhya Pradesh
- Maharashtra
- Manipur
- Meghalaya
- Mizoram
- Nagaland
- Odisha
- Puducherry
- Punjab
- Rajasthan
- Sikkim
- Tamil Nadu
- Telangana
- Tripura
- Uttar Pradesh
- Uttrakhand
- West Bengal
Eligibility norms for postgraduate medical courses in Punjab upheld by HC
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana Court by refusing to term as ‘arbitrary’ the incentivization scheme formulated by Punjab for in-service doctors, has upheld the eligibility conditions for candidates aspiring for postgraduate medical courses.
Under the formulated scheme, in-service doctors wanting to pursue postgraduate medical courses, get addtional benefits by earning incentive marks, through government hospital postings in remote areas.
A petitioner-doctor dubbing the eligibility conditions as "arbitrary" had claimed that the scheme of incentivization was applicable to doctors completing four full years in “very difficult areas”, six full years in “difficult areas” or five full years with two in “most difficult” and three in “difficult areas”.
The Bench of Justice Rajbir Sehrawat and Justice Mahesh Grover asserted that a scrutiny of the regulations indicated that a 30% limit of incentivization had been demarcated over and above marks obtained in NEET.This was an indication to the primacy given to the candidate’s NEET performance, with some concession to the in-service candidates, who had served the purposes of the state, by serving in remote, difficult, very difficult and most difficult or rural areas.
“Whether a person has served six, five or four years will make no difference in view of the year-wise benefit pegged at 10 percent for a year with a cap of 30 percent determined by the Medical Council of India.”
“In no way we find this to be arbitrary, particularly, when the power of the state to frame a policy of incentivization to in-service candidates is not in question,” the Bench added, reports Tribune.
Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2020 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd