Saveetha Medical College files plea to Declare Regulation 9A of MCI unconstitutional

Chennai: The Madras High Court has issued a directive that the admission of the 36 students who had joined the PG course in Saveetha Medical College and hospital in Tandalam, near Chennai, will be based upon the decision taken on the writ petition filed by the college.

Justices S Nagamuthu and Anitha Sumanth observed the above while admitting a writ petition by the college, seeking to declare Regulation 9A of Medical Council of India, dated March 10, as unconstitutional. Regulation 9A pertains to the Common Counselling to be conducted by the state.

The court has declared that the admissions of the 36 students in the petitioner’s college will depend upon the decision it takes on the writ petition filed. The court has told the concerned authority, to convey its decision on the same, to the students in question.

The court has given the 36 students,the freedom to apply for the state counselling. It has also given directions to the government pleader, to permit these students to file in their applications for state counselling till April 11, 2017.

The court also made clear that the order is applicable to the petitioner’s college alone. The matter has been put up for hearing on April 20.

The students had been admitted to Saveetha Medical College on February 23, as per MCI guidelines issued by National Board of Examinations ( for NEET-PG 2017) after publication of the Board’s results.

The Council 's notification issued on March 10, amending the PG Medical Education Regulation 2017, added regulation 9A related to common counselling; and the same amended form was published in the form of a notification in the gazette, on March 11.This notification mentioned that 50 per cent of the seats were to be surrendered to the government.

The petitioner college calling the notification against the judgement of the Supreme court said that it took away, private institutional rights of admissions. The petitioner further filed the present petition to declare the amendment as unconstitutional and in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, reports TNIE.