Tamil Nadu: The Directorate of Medical Education (DME) has recently communicated to the Madras High Court Bench that 32 BDS courses students have decided to discontinue their present course and instead, take admission in MBBS courses in GMCs. These students had a better cut-off this year. However, the transfer to the GMCs has results in them paying a hefty fine or penalty of Rs 10 lakh each. They took admission in BDS course last year due to lower cut off.
MD team had earlier reported on the matter that students have willingly done so. For students seeking admission in GMCs, even paying a hefty fine of Rs 10 Lakh doesn’t seem to hold them. This is the transfer cost that many students are paying for getting admission in state GMCs from Government Dental Colleges. If we compare this with the cost they might have to incur for taking admission in self financing medical colleges; then a sum of Rs 10 Lakh seems a wise decision by students and their parents.
The fine of Rs 10 Lakh this year for the transfer to GMCs is in statistical view of many students seeking a shift for admission in medical colleges in 2014. Following which the transfer fee was hiked from Rs 5 Lakh to Rs 10 Lakh- double the amount.
The Madras High Court Bench was however approached from a perspective of 32 BDS course allotters paying a penalty of Rs 10 lakh each.
A writ petition was filed by a government bus driver, M. Ayyanar, to challenge the penalty amount levied for admission of his son at Government Sivagangai Medical College this year. He pleaded in the court as to why a penalty has been levied after his son has been allowed to discontinue the BDS course, which he tool last year at a government dental college in Chennai.
Representing the DME, Additional Government Pleader A. Muthu Karuppan said to the Hindu that showing any kind of leniency to the petitioner’s son either by waiving the penalty or allowing him to pay it in installments would not only amount to breach of conditions of a bond signed by the candidates at the time of their admission but also “open a floodgate to similarly placed persons.”
The judge implied that the signature holders on the bond must follow the protocol. The court observed that the provisions and spirit of the written bond should be followed as per its legal enforcement. The court cannot direct the Directorate to allow the petitioner to pay the amount in installment. It has been duly noted by the court that the petitioner and his son both were aware of the conditions in the prospectus, when his son was admitted.
The petitioner in this case belongs is not financially sound, with his salary being the only source of income for the family; the judge has granted him liberty to approach the Health Secretary for paying the penalty amount in installments. He has been given the liberty to make a representation to the Health Secretary by the court. The judge has also ordered that the latter should consider the plea in a “humane and sympathetic” manner.