Chennai: The 59 admissions made to post graduate courses in SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Kattankulathur, have to be kept untouched as per a division bench Madras High Court’s directive, until further orders are issued in this regard.
A directive to this effect was issued by Justice Anita Sumanth & Justice S Nagamuthu ,while passing interim orders on a PIL submitted by a deemed to be university. The educational institution had filed the petition, to protect the interest of 61 students admitted to its post graduate program on April 12.
The bench however, clarified that the future of these 59 admission would depend on the outcome of the PIL petition. The court also stated that the two other seats are to be considered vacant, as these admissions were not done through proper channels. The court made it amply clear to the Director of Medical Education and the State Health Department not to allot these 59 seats to any body else, till the court took a decision on the matter, as the petitioner university had already filled them.
According to advocate, B Saraswathi, the National Board of Examination’s communication issued with regards to National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), admission of the 59 students to MD/MS/PG diploma courses, 2017, during September 2016, stated that the university had made these admissions purely based on NEET scores and the process had been completed by March 3. This also included the two picked up from the open market.
It was only on March 10 that the Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare issued a communication, asking all deemed to be universities to be part of the ‘common counselling’ for PG course admissions.The communication also mentioned that the session would begin from May 1 and end on May 31.
It was on March 10 that the Medical Council of India made an amendment to PG Medical Education Regulations, 2000, inserting Regulation 9A related to common counselling, which was printed in the gazette, on March 11. The communication also asked for the surrender of 50% seats to the government quota.
VT Gopalan, the petitioner’s senior counsel argued, admissions made prior to the issuing of the amendment cannot be affected, further adding that deemed to be universities were exempted from the seat sharing arrangement in this case.
As per the decisions of the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation and PA Inamdar cases, the seat-sharing arrangement is to be voluntary and cannot be enforced.
Calling the amendment unconstitutional and in violation of Art. 19(1)(g) of the constitution, as well as contrary to the foundation of autonomy of the private institutions, the petitioner’s counsel sought to declare the same as unconstitutional, reports the New Indian Express.