- 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
Compulsory Rural Service: SC relief to medical student
![Compulsory Rural Service: SC relief to medical student Compulsory Rural Service: SC relief to medical student](https://education.medicaldialogues.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/compulsory-rural-service.jpg)
Mumbai: Temporary relief has been granted to an MBBS doctor, who was denied permission to sit for the Postgraduate Medical Course (CET) exams, as she had not completed the mandatory one-year rural service. The relief has been granted by the Supreme Court a week after the High Court upheld the decision of the authorities.
Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar, a two member bench while issuing a notice to the authorities , has given permission to Dr Shubhra Srivastava to attend the medical counselling process, without insisting on the rural service bond.
The petitioner’s advocate Ravindra Lokhande, who represented her both in the Supreme Court and High Court, said that she was a 2009 entry into the MBBS program and therefore, should be eligible to appear for the exams.
The eligibility criteria for mandatory rural service was introduced in 2011.
The Bombay High Court at a hearing last week had rejected the petition stating “It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was admitted in the MBBS course in the year 2009. For the eligibility to appear in the Postgraduate PGM Course, the criteria fixed for PGM course will only apply.”
However, the apex court after going through the criteria and the fact that the petitioner had appeared for the entrance exams twice in 2015 and 2016 unsuccessfully, argued, “The petitioner is attempting to take the exam for the third time. It is unreasonable to not let her sit because of the eligibility criteria, ”reports DNA.
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