Rural stint will fetch docs extra PG marks

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rural-stint-will-fetch-docs-extra-PG-marks/articleshow/5379228.cms

BANGALORE: Union health minister Ghulam Nabi Azad is dangling a carrot for medical professionals with a view to improving healthcare in villages

Twitter Facebook Share
Email Print Save Comment
-- do a one-year rural stint, get 10% marks in the national medical exam for post-graduate courses. Further, a two-year stint will fetch 20% marks, three years 30% marks.

Announcing the policy here on Friday, Azad said several modifications were being made to the Medical Council of India rules, under which an MBBS graduate would be entitled to additional marks while undergoing the PG course. He was speaking after inaugurating the modernized M S Ramaiah Medical Teaching Hospital.

The move to link marks with the village deputation, he hoped, would get more people to volunteer to work in rural areas, at a time when the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) was suffering because of the unwillingness of many doctors to serve in remote areas.

This scheme would be available for new graduates. Older doctors, who have been serving in rural areas for three years or more, will be able to avail of 50% reservation for diploma courses.

Praising the southern states for being on par with several developed nations in terms of healthcare, he pointed out that the doctor-to-patient ratio needed to be brought down from the existing 1:1600 to 1:500.

To encourage more medical institutions in the country to fill the gap, he announced that the land required to set up a medical college had been brought down from the existing 25 acres to 20 acres. "In case of northeastern states, where it is hilly, the concession is that the 20 acres can be in two pieces -- which are within a radius of 10km. In case of bigger cities with a population of 20 lakh or more, the ministry will allow a medical hospital to be set up on 10 acres, taken vertically, not horizontally," Azad said.

Human resources, or rather the lack of it, has been affecting both private and government hospitals. Emphasizing that there would be no scope for touts in the ministry, Azad also said that the teacher-to-student ratio in case of specialty and super-specialty students would be raised from the existing 1:1 to 1:2. This would lead to an additional 700 specialty and 700 super-specialty students graduating every year. To fill the shortage of nurses, 200-260 nursing colleges would be opened all over the country, enabling an additional 20,000 nurses to graduate every year.

On H1N1, Azad said most countries had introduced the vaccine without conducting human or animal trials. In India, animal trials had been conducted and human trials would be started in February or March. The vaccine was likely to be ready by April 2010.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/43325/rural-stint-fetch-docs-rewards.html

Rural stint to fetch docs rewards
Bangalore, Dec 26, DH News Service :

The Centre on Friday announced a set of attractive incentives for doctors for working in the rural areas.


Union Health and Family Welfare Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad said here on Friday that doctors with MBBS degrees who serve in the rural areas for three years will be allotted 30 per cent more marks in the National Entrance Examination (NEE).

Quota in diploma

Besides, doctors who fail to get a diploma seat, even though they have served three years in the hinterland, will be given 50 per cent reservation for diploma in MD.

Azad’s proposals come in the wake of the acute shortage of doctors that the Centre is faced with in implementing the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM).

Although NRHM is a milestone that the UPA government has achieved, the mission is facing a number of problems due to the lack of doctors.

“To reduce the gap in health facilities in the rural and urban areas and to encourage doctors to work in villages, any MBBS doctor who will work in the rural areas for one year will get 10 per cent and those for two years 20 per cent marks, respectively, in NEE,” Azad said. The new scheme will be applicable for freshers who choose to enter medical education.

Azad said the shortage of doctors could be gauged from the fact that there was just one doctor for every 1,600 patients, where as the actual ratio should be one doctor for every 500 patients. Of the 300 medical colleges in the country, 150 colleges were in the private sector, with 80-85 per cent of the colleges located in south India, mainly in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

He said private hospitals have a total of 12,22,000 beds, compared to only five lakh beds in government hospitals. “Of the 12-13 lakh doctors, 60 per cent of them leave the country to work abroad. We wish to make certain changes in the Medical Council of India rules to retain them and their services,” Azad said.


http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Grace+marks+for+doctors+for+rural+clinics&artid=aTNsTceT|3Y=&SectionID=Qz/kHVp9tEs=&MainSectionID=wIcBMLGbUJI=&SectionName=UOaHCPTTmuP3XGzZRCAUTQ==&SEO=

Grace marks for doctors for rural clinics

Express News ServiceFirst Published : 26 Dec 2009 08:33:23 AM ISTLast Updated : 26 Dec 2009 01:23:00 PM IST
BANGALORE: Union Minister for Health and Family Welfare Ghulam Nabi Azad has said that his ministry has come out with certain changes in the MCI regulations, with an aim to provide better healthcare services to the rural population.
He was speaking at the inauguration of the modernised MS Ramaiah Medical Teaching Hospital on Friday.
As per the new guidelines, any MBBS doctor serving in rural area either on ad hoc or contractual basis for one year, would get 10 per cent marks in national entrance examination.
Similarly, if he or she spends two years, he or she will get 20 per cent marks. For spending three years, 30 per cent marks would be allocated in the national entrance examination.
The National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) was suffering because of doctors did not want to work in primary healthcare centres (PHCs) or hospitals in rural areas due to the inadequate working facilities, Azad said. The Minister maintained that it was difficult to push the doctors to work at the PHCs.
South on top “There are 300 medical education institutes in the country, of which 50 per cent are in the private sector and 80 per cent of the institutes are situated in the southern part of the country.
Consequently, the southern states are far better compared to other areas in providing healthcare services,” he said.
The Minister also announced concessions offered to start more private medical institutes.
“For the northern and hilly states, the establishment of a institute is now allowed on 20 acres of land, instead of the stipulated 25 acres,” the Minister said.
He said quality education and proper human resource management would boost medical tourism in the country.
Responding to a query on new appointment to the post of director at NIMHANS as the term of the current director was coming to an end on January 31 next year, the Health Minister said that a search committee would be set up for the appointment of the right candidate, as the number of candidates applying for the post was large. Bangalore, December 25 UNION Minister for Health and Family Welfare Ghulam Nabi Azad has said that his ministry has come out with certain changes in the MCI regulations, with an aim to provide better healthcare services to the rural population.
He was speaking at the inauguration of the modernised MS Ramaiah Medical Teaching Hospital on Friday.
As per the new guidelines, any MBBS doctor serving in rural area either on ad hoc or contractual basis for one year, would get 10 per cent marks in national entrance examination.
Similarly, if he or she spends two years, he or she will get 20 per cent marks. For spending three years, 30 per cent marks would be allocated in the national entrance examination.
The National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) was suffering because of doctors did not want to work in primary healthcare centres (PHCs) or hospitals in rural areas due to the inadequate working facilities, Azad said. The Minister maintained that it was difficult to push the doctors to work at the PHCs.
South on top “There are 300 medical education institutes in the country, of which 50 per cent are in the private sector and 80 per cent of the institutes are situated in the southern part of the country.
Consequently, the southern states are far better compared to other areas in providing healthcare services,” he said.
The Minister also announced concessions offered to start more private medical institutes.
“For the northern and hilly states, the establishment of a institute is now allowed on 20 acres of land, instead of the stipulated 25 acres,” the Minister said.
He said quality education and proper human resource management would boost medical tourism in the country.
Responding to a query on new appointment to the post of director at NIMHANS as the term of the current director was coming to an end on January 31 next year, the Health Minister said that a search committee would be set up for the appointment of the right candidate, as the number of candidates applying for the post was large.
H1N1 vaccine by March-end
The Health Minister said that the clinical trials for H1N1 vaccines were still going on. The clinical trials on animal and human beings would be over by January and the vaccines will be launched by either end of March or beginning of April next year. The Health Minister said that the clinical trials for H1N1 vaccines were still going on. The clinical trials on animal and human beings would be over by January and the vaccines will be launched by either end of March or beginning of April next year.

Govt cannot be forced to give quotas: Supreme Court

From http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/73303/India/Govt+cannot+be+forced+to+give+quotas:+Supreme+Court.html

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that citizens belonging to backward classes, including scheduled castes (SC) and scheduled tribes (ST), could not move courts to force the government to provide them reservation.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice J.M. Panchal noted that the government was the best judge to take a decision on reservation and it could not be claimed as a matter of fundamental right.

Dismissing petitions seeking a direction to the Haryana government to provide reservation to SCs and STs in post-graduate medical courses, the bench pointed out that it was for the state governments to decide whether to provide reservation or not.

"In our view, every state can take its own decision with regard to reservation depending on various factors," the bench observed. "Article 15(4) (of the Constitution) does not make any mandatory provision for reservation and the power to make reservation under Article 15(4) is discretionary and no writcan be issued to effect reservation," the bench held.

The bench accepted the contention of the state government that Article 15(4) - whichprovided for reservation in educational institu-tions - was merely an "enabling provision"which entitled the government to provide forreservation. Though the judgment pertained to reserva-tion in educational institutions, Article 16(4)which provided for reservation in public employment was also couched in a simi-lar language.

The bench specifically recorded in its judg-ment that "sub-clause (4) in both Articles 15and 16 is only an enabling provision for the stategovernment to bring forward legislation or passan executive order for the benefit of socially andeducationally backward classes of citizens andfor the Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes".

Thus, a policy decision to pro-vide reservation, unless unreason-able, would be protected by arti-cles 15(4) and 16(4) from beingassailed before courts but a peti-tion could not be filed to force thegovernment to provide reservaprovide for mandatory reservation.

Holding that Article 15( 4) did not make a mandatory provision for reservation, the bench pointed out that the principle behind the provision was that " preferential treatment can be given validly when the socially and educationally backward classes need it". It further accepted the contention that the state government was the competent authority to decide the reservation in the state.

The petitioners, who had challenged the decision of the state government not to provide reservation in post- graduate medical courses, had pointed out that several states had provided reservation to SCs and STs at the postgraduate level. They pointed out that the All India Institute of Medical Sciences also provided reservation to SCs and STs in post- graduate medical courses.

The bench rejected an argument that the state government was bound to follow the policy of the central government which had provided for reservation in postgraduate medical courses. Rejecting the argument, the court said " the same ( policy) automatically cannot be applied in other selections where state governments have the power to regulate." Article 15( 4) states that the government could not be prevented from " making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes". Though it gives the state ( government) the right to provide reservation for the backward classes, it does not give the latter a corresponding right to claim reservation as a right.

Opposing the petition, the state government had argued that it had taken a conscious decision of not providing reservation to SC/ ST categories in admission at the post- graduate level and " such a decision of the government suffers no infirmity". The state government said the matter regarding reservation of seats in the PG courses had been considered by it from time to time and the decision had been taken keeping in view the recommendations of the Medical Council of India and decisions in some other states.

" Since the government of Haryana has decided to grant reservation for SC/ ST categories/ backward class candidates for admission at MBBS level i. e.

undergraduate level then it does not mean that it is bound to grant reservation at the postgraduate level also," Justice Sathasivam, who wrote the judgment for the bench, said.

Though the court dismissed the petitions, it said Haryana government would, however, be free to reconsider its decision. " However, we make it clear that irrespective of above conclusion, the state of Haryana is free to reconsider its earlier decision, if it so desires, and circumstances warrant in the future years," the bench clarified.

The word of law
Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, birth place 15( 4) Nothing in this Article... shall prevent the state from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the SCs and the STs.

Article 16: Equality of opportunity in public employment 16( 4) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the state from making provisions for the reservations in favour of any backward class of citizens, which the state feels are not adequately represented in the services under the state.

Kidney removed in postmortem, HC awards Rs 10L compensation

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday awarded Rs ten lakh in compensation to a woman whose husband's kidney was illegally removed during his postmortem.

The removal of kidney from the deceased's body came to light when a second postmortem was conducted on the plea of the wife of the deceased. After going through both reports, the court found that in first postmortem report the doctor had mentioned that only a portion of kidney was taken from the body for chemical examination while the second report said the left kidney was missing.

"The doctor who conducted postmortem on the dead body of a person is expected to be a fair person as full faith is reposed on him by the family members. This faith is shattered by such instances where an organ is totally removed by the doctor who conducted the postmortem," Justice Aruna Suresh said while directing the Centre to pay compensation.

The Bench passed the order on a petition filed by the wife of deceased Ajai Kumar, an armyman, seeking a fresh investigation into the death of her husband who had allegedly
committed suicide in Jammu and Kashmir.

"I find it a fit case where the Respondent(government) should compensate the petitioner for their own wrongs committed while conducting postmortem on the body of the
deceased. Respondents are directed to pay Rs 10 lakh as damages/compensation to the petitioner within three months," the court said.

Contract Staff need not be regularised and cannot claim regularisation

CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 6337 of 2003

PETITIONER:
National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors.

RESPONDENT:
Somvir Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/05/2006

BENCH:
S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar

JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T

W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 464, 465, 466, 467 of 2004 AND 7575 of 2005


S.B. SINHA, J :

The Appellant is a Government Company. It is a public sector
undertaking. It is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India. A policy decision was taken by the Appellant not
to make any further recruitment in Marketing Division in any category of
post stating:

"It has been decided that with immediate effect the
strength of the Marketing Division be pagged to the
number of individuals in position in the Marketing
Division as on 31.03.1998. It has also been decided
that no further recruitment be made in the Marketing
Division in any category of post. However, as and
when if any post is required to be filled up in any
category due to exigencies of work, the approval of
D(F)/MD be obtained and the paper routed through
the Corporate Office Personnel Department."

Despite such ban the Respondents had been appointed. Before
such appointment the employment exchange was not intimated about the
vacancy in terms of the provisions of Employment Exchange
(Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 (for short "the 1959
Act"). Admittedly, no advertisement was also issued. According to the
Respondent, he worked at the Shimla Office of the Appellant for a period
of six months and, thus, he was entitled for recruitment in terms of Rule
1.5(g) of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Rule 1.5(g) of the Rules
does not envisage regular recruitment but a recruitment on a contractual
basis. The Respondent, thus, on his own showing was appointed on a
contractual basis. It is trite that a person who obtained recruitment on
contractual basis cannot claim regularisation in service. The
Respondents herein filed applications for their recruitment without any
vacancy having been notified. They were said to have been interviewed
on 24.3.1991 by a purported Committee constituted by the General
Manager. Appointment letters were issued on or about 9.4.1991. An
advertisement was admittedly issued only on 30.11.1993 for the post of
Peon-cum-Messenger.

The Appellant in the year 1994, however, took a decision to fill up
the posts in the Marketing Division inter alia stating:

"During the coordination committee meeting held in
October 1994, at C.O. the recognized union of
marketing division requested for removal of ban in
filling up vacant posts in marketing division. It was
agreed that action to fill up the vacant posts in
marketing division will be taken by marketing
division, keeping in view the recruitments within the
overall manpower strength."

Actions were initiated to fill up the vacant posts on permanent
status by following the recruitment procedure. The Respondents were
also granted an opportunity to file applications thereagainst. Relaxation
of age to the extent of their services as temporary employees had also
been granted.

The Appellant has framed its own Recruitment and Promotion
Rules. The recruitment of an employee is governed by the said Rules.
The terms and conditions of services are also governed by the same
Rules. In terms of Rule 1.5 of the said Rules, recruitment of various
posts were to be made inter alia from the following sources:

(a) Employment Exchange as per the provisions of the 1959 Act.
(b) Zila Saink Boards Director General Resettlement.
(c) Direct Recruitment by advertisement.

Rule 1.6.1 provides for method and procedure for recruitment in
terms whereof all posts in the scale of pay of Rs. 1560-2160 is required to
be considered as 'corporate level'. Direct recruitment can be resorted to
only when no suitable candidate for promotion was available in the
appropriate rank. Rule 1.6.8 provides for the mode and manner in which
the advertisement is to be issued. Rule 1.6.9 provides for reservation.
The manner in which Selection Committee has to be constituted has been
laid down in paragraph 1.11. Such Selection Committee inter alia must
consist of two members from the discipline for which recruitment is to be
made apart from an officer from the Personnel Department as Member
Secretary. In the event, a selection is to be made for reserved category,
an officer of appropriate status belonging to SC/ST will be included as a
member. In a case of recruitment to Group C & D posts, a member
representing minority community will also be associated in the selection
committee. The matter relating to interview is provided for in paragraph
12.1. Appointments are to be made in terms of paragraph 1.13.

The said Rules, therefore, lay down in great details as to how and
in what manner the selection process was to be initiated, the minimum
qualification therefor, the constitution of Selection Committee and other
relevant factors.

It is not in dispute that the Respondents herein were appointed
without any advertisements and without any intimation to the
employment exchange. Appointments are said to be made at the instance
of two officers. Only after retirement of the said officers, writ petitions
were filed before several High Courts including Chhattisgarh, Punjab and
Haryana, Himachala Pradesh, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.

The writ petitions involved 52 employees. Different views were
expressed by different High Courts.

The writ petitions filed by the Respondents were allowed directing
the Appellant to regularise the services of the Respondents to pay them
all monetary benefits in terms of the appointment letters.

Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the Appellant submitted that the matter relating to regularisation of
services recruited on ad hoc basis is no longer res integra in view of the
recent Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Secretary, State of
Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others [2006 (4) SCALE 197].

Mr. Ashok Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the appointments of the
Respondents may be irregular but not illegal and in that view of the
matter, the impugned judgments need not be interfered with.
The Respondents herein were appointed only on applications made
by them. Admittedly, no advertisement was issued in a newspaper nor
the employment exchange was notified as regard existence of vacancies.
It is now trite law that a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India is bound to comply with the constitutional
requirements as adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 thereof. When
Recruitment Rules are made, the employer would be bound to comply
with the same. Any appointment in violation of such Rules would render
them as nullities. It is also well-settled that no recruitment should be
permitted to be made through backdoor.

It was contended that for Class IV employees, the Employment
Exchanges were not required to be notified in view of Section 3(1)(d) of
the 1959 Act. Section 3(1)(d) of the 1959 Act reads as under:

"3. Act not to apply in relation to certain vacancies
 (1) This Act shall not apply in relation to
vacancies 
(a) ***
(b) ***
(c) ***
(d) in any employment to do unskilled office
work;"

Such a plea does not appear to have been raised before the High
Court. The question as regards the nature of duties required to be
performed by the Respondents having not been raised. No material was
placed by the employer to show as to whether the job of the Respondents
was within the purview of the aforementioned provision. The
Respondents themselves stated that they raised the question of
applicability of the said provision of the Act in a suit filed at Jagadhri
when another person was appointed as Peon-cum-Messenger. It,
therefore, cannot be said that they were not aware of the statutory
provisions contained in the said suit.

The order of ban suggests that if any appointment was to be made
due to exigencies of work, the approval of the Director (Finance) or
Managing Director was to be obtained and the paper routed in respect
thereof should be through the corporate office. The Respondents contend
that as at the point of time the Managing Director, Shri S.S. Jain had been
placed under suspension, the file was placed before the General Manager
(Marketing). The said plea cannot be accepted for more than one reason.
If the regular incumbent or the Managing Director was placed under
suspension, somebody else must be incharge of the said post.
Furthermore, the file could be placed before the Director (Finance). The
General Manager by no stretch of imagination could accord approval for
appointment.

Submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondents to the effect that the ban was only on paper is not a matter
which would fall for consideration of this Court inasmuch as it is not in
dispute that the ban was lifted only on 16.12.1994. On what premise, an
advertisement was issued on 30.11.1993 is not known. It is not the case
of the Respondent that despite existence of ban some other workman was
appointed prior to the lifting thereof. Even if, recruitments have been
made illegally, the Respondents cannot claim any legal right on the basis
thereof.

Regularisation, furthermore, is not a mode of appointment. If
appointment is made without following the Rules, the same being a
nullity the question of confirmation of an employee upon the expiry of
the purported period of probation would not arise. The Constitution
Bench in Umadevi (supra) made a detailed survey of the case laws
operating in the field.

The referral order to the Constitution Bench was made by a 3-
Judge Bench of this Court stating:

"1. Apart from the conflicting opinions between
the three Judges' Bench decisions in Ashwani Kumar
and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in
1997 (2) SCC 1, State of Haryana and Ors vs., Piara
Singh and Ors. Reported in 1992 (4) SCC 118 and
Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate
Daily Wage Employees Association and Ors. Vs.
State of Karnataka and Ors. Reported in 1990 (2)
SCC 396, on the one hand and State of Himachal
Pradesh vs. Suresh Kumar Verma and Anr., reported
in AIR 1996 SC 1565, State of Punjab vs.
Surinder Kumar and Ors. Reported in AIR 1992 SC
1593, and B.N. Nagarajan and Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka and Ors., reported in 1979 (4) SCC 507
on the other, which has been brought out in one of
the judgments under appeal of Karnataka High Court
in State of Karnataka vs. H. Ganesh Rao, decided on
1.6.2000, reported in 2001 (4) Karnataka Law
Journal 466, learned Additional Solicitor General
urged that the scheme for regularization is repugnant
to Articles 16(4), 309, 320 and 335 of the
Constitution of India and, therefore, these cases are
required to be heard by a Bench of Five learned
Judges (Constitution Bench).

2. On the other hand, Mr. M.C. Bhandare,
learned senior counsel, appearing for the employees
urged that such a scheme for regularization is
consistent with the provision of Articles 14 and 21 of
the Constitution.

3. Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayan, learned counsel,
appearing in CC Nos.109-498 of 2003, has filed the
G.O. dated 19.7.2002 and submitted that orders have
already been implemented.

4. After having found that there is conflict of
opinion between three Judges Bench decisions of
this Court, we are of the view that these cases are
required to be heard by a Bench of five learned
Judges.
5. Let these matters be placed before Hon'ble the
Chief Justice for appropriate orders."

The Constitution Bench opined that any appointment made in
violation of the Recruitment Rules as also in violation of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution would be nullity. The contention raised on behalf
of the employees that those temporary or ad hoc employees who had
continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider their cases
for regularisation was answered, thus:

"With respect, why should the State be allowed to
depart from the normal rule and indulge in
temporary employment in permanent posts? This
Court, in our view, is bound to insist on the State
making regular and proper recruitments and is bound
not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent
transgression of the rules of regular recruitment.
The direction to make permanent -- the distinction
between regularization and making permanent, was
not emphasized here -- can only encourage the
State, the model employer, to flout its own rules and
would confer undue benefits on a few at the cost of
many waiting to compete. With respect, the
direction made in paragraph 50 of Piara Singh
(supra) are to some extent inconsistent with the
conclusion in paragraph 45 therein. With great
respect, it appears to us that the last of the directions
clearly runs counter to the constitutional scheme of
employment recognized in the earlier part of the
decision. Really, it cannot be said that this decision
has laid down the law that all ad hoc, temporary or
casual employees engaged without following the
regular recruitment procedure should be made
permanent."

It was furthermore opined:

"26. It is not necessary to notice all the decisions of
this Court on this aspect. By and large what emerges
is that regular recruitment should be insisted upon,
only in a contingency an ad hoc appointment can be
made in a permanent vacancy, but the same should
soon be followed by a regular
recruitment and that appointments to non-available
posts should not be taken note of for regularization.
The cases directing regularization have mainly
proceeded on the basis that having permitted the
employee to work for some period, he should be
absorbed, without really laying down any law to that
effect, after discussing the constitutional scheme for
public employment."

Taking note of some recent decisions of this Court, it was held that
the State does not enjoy a power to make appointments in terms of
Article 162 of the Constitution of India. It further quoted with approval a
decision of this Court in Union Public Service Commission v. Girish
Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Others [2006 (2) SCALE 115] in the following
terms:

"The appointment to any post under the State can
only be made after a proper advertisement has been
made inviting applications from eligible candidates
and holding of selection by a body of experts or a
specially constituted committee whose members are
fair and impartial through a written examination or
interview or some other rational criteria for judging
the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in
response to the advertisement made. A regular
appointment to a post under the State or Union
cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the
prescribed manner which may in some cases include
inviting applications from the employment exchange
where eligible candidates get their names registered.
Any regular appointment made on a post under the
State or Union without issuing advertisement
inviting applications from eligible candidates and
without holding a proper selection where all eligible
candidates get a fair chance to compete would
violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of
the Constitution..."

It was clearly held:
"These binding decisions are clear imperatives that
adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
is a must in the process of public employment."

The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondents that the appointments were irregular and not illegal, cannot
be accepted for more than one reason. They were appointed only on the
basis of their applications. The Recruitment Rules were not followed.
Even the Selection Committee had not been properly constituted. In view
of the ban in employment, no recruitment was permissible in law. The
reservation policy adopted by the Appellant had not been maintained.
Even cases of minorities had not been given due consideration.

The Constitution Bench thought of directing regularisation of the
services only of those employees whose appointments were irregular as
explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 799],
Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah & Anr.[(1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N.
Nagarajan & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(1979) 3 SCR 937]
wherein this Court observed:

"In B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka &
Ors. [(1979) 3 SCR 937], this court clearly held that
the words "regular" or "regularization" do not
connote permanence and cannot be construed so as
to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of
appointments. They are terms calculated to condone
any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure
only such defects as are attributable to methodology
followed in making the appointments"

Judged by the standards laid down by this Court in the
aforementioned decisions, the appointments of the Respondents are
illegal. They do not, thus, have any legal right to continue in service.

It is true that the Respondents had been working for a long time. It
may also be true that they had not been paid wages on a regular scale of
pay. But, they did not hold any post. They were, therefore, not entitled
to be paid salary on a regular scale of pay. Furthermore, only because the
Respondents have worked for some time, the same by itself would not be
a ground for directing regularisation of their services in view of the
decision of this Court in Uma Devi (supra).

In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution
Bench, in our opinion, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained.
They are set aside accordingly.

S/Shri Somvir Singh, Hansraj Benewal, Malkiat Singh, Ranjit
Singh are said to be working. They may be relieved of their posts. We
may, however, observe that their cases may be considered for future
appointment and age bar, if any, in view of the policy decision of the
Appellant itself may be relaxed to the extent they had worked. The salary
or any remuneration paid to them, however, may not be recovered. This
order, however, is being passed in exercise of our jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India keeping in view the principles
embodied in Section 70 of the Contract Act. The appeals are allowed. No
costs.

Doctors acquitted of criminal negligence

http://www.hindu.com/2009/08/09/stories/2009080959691000.htm

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld a Calcutta High Court judgment acquitting three doctors of criminal negligence in the death of Anuradha Saha, wife of Kunal Saha, a doctor based in the United States.

Anuradha Saha, a child psychologist, died in 1998 at 36, following complications in treatment at the Advanced Medicare Research Institute (AMRI), Kolkata. Dr. Saha’s relative, Malai Ganguly, registered a criminal case against doctors Abani Roy Choudhury, Mukherjee and Baidyanath Halder, alleging medical negligence.

While Dr. Choudhury was acquitted by the trial court, it sentenced the other two to three months’ imprisonment. The High Court, on appeal, acquitted both.

Meanwhile, a complaint filed by Dr. Saha seeking a compensation of Rs. 77 lakh was dismissed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The present appeals were filed by Malai Ganguly and Dr. Saha against the High Court judgment and the Commission’s order.

On Friday, A Bench, consisting of Justices S.B. Sinha and Deepak Verma, dismissed the criminal appeals but slapped costs of Rs. 5 lakh on the AMRI and Rs. 1 lakh on Dr. Mukherjee.

Criminal intention
The Bench, in its 132-page judgment, said: “For negligence to amount to an offence the element of mens rea [criminal intention] must be shown to exist. For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much high. Negligence which is not of such a high degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis for prosecution. To prosecute a medical professional for negligence under criminal law it must be shown that the accused did something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional in his senses and prudence would have done or failed to do.”

In the instant case, “negligent action has been noticed with respect to more than one respondent. A cumulative incidence, therefore, has led to the death of the patient. It is to be noted that doctrine of cumulative effect is not available in criminal law. The complexities involved in the instant case, as also the differing nature of negligence exercised by various actors, make it very difficult to distil individual extent of negligence with respect to each of the respondents.”

Writing the judgment, Justice Sinha said: “The law on medical negligence also has to keep up with the advances in medical science as to treatment as also diagnostics. Doctors must increasingly engage with patients during treatment, especially when the line of treatment is a contested one and hazards are involved. Standards of care in such cases will involve the duty to disclose to patients the risks of serious side-effects or about alternative treatments. In the times to come, litigation may be based on the theory of lack of informed consent.”

As regards the civil appeal, the Bench said the Commission was clearly wrong in opining that there was no negligence on the part of the hospital or the doctors. It, therefore, remitted the matter to the Commission for determining the quantum of compensation preferably within six months. “We further direct that if any foreign expert is to be examined, it shall be done only through videoconferencing and at the cost of respondents.”

In-service quota of PG medical, dental seats withdrawn

http://www.hindu.com/2006/06/18/stories/2006061821730500.htm

In-service quota of PG medical, dental seats withdrawn

B.S. Ramesh

Discrepancies noticed in rank list, says Government Discrepancies noticed in rank list: Government

# Weightage of two marks for every year of service is given to in-service doctors
# Scores of students started attending classes more than a month ago

BANGALORE: Taking scores of postgraduate (PG) students by surprise, the State Government has withdrawn the provisional allotment of in-service candidates from the Department of Health and Family Welfare for admission to postgraduate degree and diploma courses in medicine and dentistry for 2006-07.

It has ordered re-counselling of candidates who appeared for the postgraduate common entrance test (PGCET) 2006.

The decision has come as a shock for several doctors who have secured admission to colleges for degree and diploma courses under the in-service quota and started attending classes.

The Government Order, issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, says the direction on re-counselling of seats for in-service candidates was made under Rule 19 (5) of the Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for Admission to Postgraduate Medical and Dental Degree and Diploma Courses Rule, 2003.

Justifying the cancellation, sources in the Government told The Hindu on Friday that discrepancies were noticed in the rank list of in-service candidates selected and prepared by the Department of Health and Family Welfare and sent to the Selection Committee of PGCET 2006.

The committee, which went into the issue, held a meeting on June 2 and recommended to the Government to withdraw the allotment of seats made on May 8, and conduct counselling again. The Government accepted the recommendations and issued an order on June 12 seeking a fresh process to select in-service candidates.

Candidates said PGCET 2006 was held on February 12. On May 2, a notification issued giving weightage of two marks for every year of service/contract for in-service doctors subject to a maximum of 30 marks.

On May 6, the rank list of PGCET 2006 was issued, and counselling held on May 8. Selected candidates joined courses on May 9.

No PG Degree/Diploma Holder shall be denied of their certificates in original on their completion of their course

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 12-12-2008

Coram

The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

W.P.Nos.12923, 12924, 12925, 12926, 12927, 12928, 12716, 12717, 12718, 12719, 12720, 12721, 12722, 12723, 12724, 12725, 13078, 13449, 13450, 13451, 13452, 13554, 13555, 13556, 13831, 13832, 13833, 14194, 14195, 14353, 14354, 14832, 15761, 16207, 16208, 17386, 17387, 18501, 18502, 19869, 22471, 22513, 22514 of 2008
and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions

W.P.No.12923 of 2008

Dr.S.Rajesh ... Petitioner


Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by its Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.

2. The Director of Medical Education,
Directorate of Medical Education,
Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.

3. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
The Directorate of Public Health and
Preventive Medicine,
Egmore, Chennai - 8.

4. The Dean, Madras Medical College,
Chennai - 3.

5. The President,
The Medical Council of India,
Sector 8, Pocket 14, Dwaraka-1,
New Delhi - 110 077. ... Respondents

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the G.O.Ms.No.215 Health and Family Welfare (B2) Department, dated 12.6.2007, and quash the same and incidentally annul the clause No.68(d) of the Post-Graduate Degree/Diploma/M.D.S./Five Year M.Ch.(Neuro Surgery) courses in the Tamil Nadu Governmental Medical/Dental Non-Governmental Self Financing and Government Aided Colleges Prospectus 2005-2006, and the communication issued by the second respondent to the 4th respondent bearing Ref.No.20149/E3/1/2008 Directorate of Medical Education, Chennai-10, dated 2.4.2008 as void and thereon accordingly forbear the respondents from in any manner enforcing the bond as against the Post Graduate/Diploma/ Degree candidates for the period 2005 to 2008, which was obtained from the petitioner by the 4th respondent.

For Petitioners : M/s.A.Palaniappan, V.Jayaprakash &
K.Venkateswaran

For Respondents : Mr.S.Ramaswamy,
Additional Advocate General,
and
Mr.G.Sankaran,
Special Government Pleader,
assisted by
Ms.Dakshayani Reddy &
Ms.N.Kavitha,
Government Advocates


COMMON ORDER

The common prayer in these writ petitions is to quash the G.O.Ms.No.215 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 12.6.2007 and to annul Clause 68(d) of the P.G. Degree/Diploma for MDS for five year M.Ch (Neuro Surgery) course in the Tamil Nadu Government Medical/Dental non-governmental self-financing and Government aided college prospectus 2005 as well as the proceedings of the second respondent dated 2.4.2008 and forbear the respondent from in any manner enforcing the bond as against the P.G. Diploma/Degree candidates for the period 2005-2008.

2. The issue involved in all these writ petitions being one and the same, all the writ petitions are dealt with by this common order.

3. The petitioners herein are Post Graduate Degree/Diploma holders in medicine in allied branches. The petitioners are admitted in their respective PG Degree/Diploma course 2005-2006 and the Diploma holders completed their two years Diploma course and the Degree holders also completed their three years course as of now. All the petitioners are admitted in the PG Degree/Diploma courses in Non-Service Quota (50%)/All India Quota seats provided for admission to PG Degree/Diploma courses.
4. The case of the petitioners who were admitted under the All India Quota is that they have not applied for admission to PG Degree/Diploma course before the respondents as per the prospectus issued by the respondents for admission 2005-2006 and they appeared for All India Entrance Test in respect of All India seats and based on the marks secured by them in the Entrance Examination and as per their choice of the course/Colleges, they were selected and admitted in the medical colleges in Tamil Nadu. Thus, the contention of the said candidates is that the prospectus issued by the respondents, particularly Clause 68(d) and the Government order issued in G.O.Ms.No.215 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 12.6.2007 as well as the circular issued by the second respondent dated 2.4.2008 are not applicable to the candidates admitted on the basis of selection made under the All India quota.

5. The case of the other petitioners, who are admitted under the Non-Service Quota is that they were forced to execute a bond while joining in their respective PG Degree/Diploma course to serve in the Government Institution for a period of three years, if the government give them posting, failing which the PG Diploma Holders shall pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and the PG Degree Holders shall pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs for not serving in the Government, for the above period.

6. The petitioners are also challenging the order of the Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.215 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 12.6.2007 stating that their Post Graduate Degree/Diploma certificates will be returned to the Doctors only on satisfactory completion of Government services for two years and the Clause in the Government Order granting relaxation of Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, so as to enable the PG Degree/Diploma Holders to serve for a minimum period of three years and they can be made permanent, if they appear and pass in the TNPSC selection. The circular of the second respondent dated 2.4.2008 is also challenged calling upon the PG Degree/Diploma Holders to attend counselling for appointment for the period of three years.

7. The contentions raised in these writ petitions are that the bond executed by the petitioners will not bind them as they were forced to execute the same at the time of joining, without any option. The PG Degree/Diploma Holders are not assured of posting on completion of their course in consonance with their qualification and therefore they are compelled to work in primary Health Centres, where there is no provision to treat the patients as per their specialisation. The stipend given to the petitioners by the Government is like allowances paid to apprentices while they get training and therefore the payment of stipend by the Government during their course of PG Degree/Diploma studies cannot be a reason to compel them to serve in the Government Hospitals for three years. The petitioners are prevented from pursuing their super speciality course before serving as per the bond condition. By creating temporary post for three years, by relaxation of Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu General State and Subordinate Service Rules, is arbitrary and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents have no jurisdiction to retain the original certificates on completion of their course, which prevents the petitioners to register their PG Degree/Diploma in the State Medical Council, disabling them to practice.

8. The respondents have filed counter affidavit by justifying Clause 68(d) in the prospectus as well as the G.O.Ms.No.215 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 12.6.2007 and the circular issued, by contending that the petitioners have accepted the terms and conditions of the prospectus and having executed the bond and joined in the course and completed their course, they are bound to serve in the Government Institutions for a minimum period of three years. The petitioners having paid a very meagre amount of Rs.20,000/- per year towards fees when compared to several lakhs of rupees charged in private medical colleges, lot of revenue is spent by the Government to impart medical education to the petitioners. Further the Government provides stipend to Non-Service candidates admitted in PG Degree/Diploma course every month during the period of post graduation/Diploma course out of the revenue of the State. Hence for levying subsidised rate of fee and payment of stipend from the Government revenue and the said benefit having been availed the petitioners, they are obliged to serve the poor rural people at least for a stipulated period in terms of the bond executed. The said decision taken by the Government is a policy decision taking note of the public interest involved, particularly the non-availability of Doctors in rural areas to serve the public. The Government has taken the following decisions:
(1) The Government have taken a policy decision to start up Government Medical Colleges in every Districts in Tamil Nadu to provide territory care and sophisticated treatment for the welfare of the poor patients.
(2) The Doctors are given job opportunities in the Government service, with the above clause.
(3) Consequent of starting of new medical colleges in every district considerable strength of Doctors are needed to satisfy the MCI norms and for the treatment of poor patients.

It is also stated in the counter affidavit that having executed a bond by accepting the condition contained in Clause 68(d), the petitioners are estopped from contending that the said bond conditions cannot be enforced. The relaxation of Rule 10(a)(i) is ordered only to enable the respondents to give appointment order to PG Degree/Diploma Holders to serve temporarily for three years and they can participate in the TNPSC selection and get permanent appointment. Insofar as the retaining of the certificates it is stated that if the original certificates are issued, the implementation of the bond condition could not be possible and if any candidate is not willing to join the service, they can remit the bond amount and get the original certificates. Insofar as the contention that the candidates are posted in Primary Health Centres, counselling is arranged and based on the vacancy position, candidates are posted in their speciality/sub-speciality and their services are utilised. The demand of original certificates to appear for Competitive Entrance Examinations for pursuing Super-speciality course is breach of bond. The amount claimed through execution of the bond is very reasonable and there is no arbitrariness or irrationality in the clause.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents are not entitled to invoke the bond condition against All India Quota students since they have not applied before the respondents for admission based on the prospectus. The Government Order was issued after the petitioners joined in their respective course of PG Degree/Diploma. The respondents having extracted the services of the PG students to treat the patients in the Government hospitals attached to the Medical Colleges, the stipend paid and the subsidised fee paid is already compensated and there is no necessity to impose further condition to serve in the Government Hospitals for three years. By enforcing the bond and not issuing the certificates, the petitioners are prevented from joining in super speciality course for three years which is highly arbitrary. The PG Degree/Diploma Holders cannot be posted in the Primary Health Centres, as there is no adequate infrastructural facilities available to treat the patients as per their speciality. By relaxation of Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules of the States and Subordinate Service, the respondents are creating compulsory temporary service, which is unconstitutional. There is no job security to the petitioners after completion of three years of temporary service and they will be sent out on completion of the period, which would cause great prejudice in the petitioners' entire career. The conditions in the prospectus can be challenged at any time since it affects the fundamental rights of the petitioners as there is no waiver of fundamental right. In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel cited various judgments.

10. The learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand submitted that the prospectus being the rule of selection and such of those candidates applied and got admitted in the PG Degree/Diploma courses by executing bond to serve for three years in the Government Hospitals are to pay Rs.2 lakhs insofar as the Diploma Holders and Rs.3 lakhs by PG Degree Holders, the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the same after completion of the course and the attitude of the petitioners amounts to seeking the change of rule in the middle of the game and the same is impermissible. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that based on the speciality in the PG Degree/Diploma, candidates are given posting either in the Medical Colleges/District Headquarters Hospitals or in Primary Health Centres, where advanced way of treatment is also now introduced and as far as possible the candidates are posted in their respective specialised field depending upon the vacancy position through counselling. The petitioners having executed their bonds to serve for three years, they are not entitled to appear for admission to the super speciality course and only after serving three years, they can join in the super speciality course. The impugned clause in the prospectus as well as the Government order is issued taking note of public interest to serve the rural public and the petitioners are also bound to comply with the conditions contained in the bonds, failing which they are bound to remit the bond amount to the Government and there is no illegality or irrationality in the impugned orders.

11. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as respondents.

12. From the above pleadings the following issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions:
1) Whether the respondents are justified in getting bonds from the candidates selected under All India Quota ?
2) Whether the candidates selected under the Non-Service Quota in the State selection are entitled to challenge the prospectus, after joining in the course and after completion of the course ?
3) Whether the G.O.Ms.No.215 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 12.6.2007, ordering retention of original certificates of the PG Degree /Diploma Holders on their completion of respective course, is valid ?
4) Whether the respondents can deny the rights of the PG Degree/Diploma Holders to apply for the super speciality courses, merely because they have not completed the bond period ?

13. Issue No.1: The petitioners, who are admitted on All India Quota, never applied before the respondents for admission to PG Degree/Diploma course. They have applied pursuant to the prospectus issued for admission to the said category and therefore the respondents cannot enforce the prospectus conditions, particularly clause 68(d) and direct the said candidates to execute the bonds at the time of joining in the course and such execution of the bonds will not in any way bind the All India Quota candidates. The learned Additional Advocate General also admitted the said issue and fairly submitted that the conditions of the bond and the Government Order cannot be applied to the candidates selected under the All India Quota. Hence it is held that the respondents are not entitled to enforce the bond or the Government order or the circular of the second respondent against the PG Degree/Diploma Holders, who are admitted under the All India Quota.
14. Issue No.2: Clause 68(d) of the Prospectus reads as follows:
"Clause 68(d). Non-Service candidates shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees Two lakhs only) on admission to Postgraduate Diploma Courses and Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) for Postgraduate Degree courses/MDS/ M.Ch., (Neuro Surgery) 5 years Course of the 2005-2006 session undertaking that they shall serve the Government of Tamil Nadu for a period of not less than 3 years, if required. During the above period, they will be paid a salary on par with the fresh recruits of the Government of Tamil Nadu Medical Services and the Government of Tamil Nadu will requisition their services, if required, within a period of 2 years from the date of completion of their Postgraduate Degree/Diploma/ MDS/M.Ch., (Neuro Surgery) 5 years Course. Two permanent Government servants shall be sureties. The prescribed form of bond will be available in the colleges at the time of admission. The bond will become infructuous if he/she serves the State Government of Tamil Nadu if required for a minimum period of 3 years."
The prospectus issued in the year 2005-2006 is the rule of selection for admission of all the petitioners to PG Degree/Diploma Course admitted in Non-Service Quota of the State Government. The said rules having been accepted by the petitioners and submitted their application for appearance in the entrance examination for selection and based on the marks secured by them they were selected and admitted in the Government Colleges in the Degree/Diploma Courses. The said candidates also executed the bonds as per clause 68(d) and therefore the candidates admitted under the State Quota - Non-Service are bound to comply with the conditions contained in the bonds, if they are offered posting and if they are not willing to join, they have to necessarily remit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs/Rs.3 lakhs as the case may be to the Government. Whether the prospectus, which is the rule of selection can be challenged after taking part in the selection and got admitted and after completion of the course, came up for consideration before this Court as well as the Supreme Court in various decisions.

15. The binding nature of the instructions to the candidates is well settled. The notification/instructions to candidates issued by the TNPSC for the year 2003-3004, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2006 WLR 574 (Dr.M.Vennila v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission). In paragraph 16, the question as to whether the requirement as stated in the Notification/Information Brochure are to be strictly complied with or not and whether they are mandatory was considered. In paragraphs 19 and 25, the Division Bench held thus,
19. The principle that the prospectus is binding on all persons concerned has been laid by the Supreme Court in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh vs. Sanjay Gulati (AIR 1983 Supreme Court 580 = 1983 (96) LW 172 S.N.). Following the same, a Division Bench of this Court has also observed in Rathnaswamy, Dr.A. Vs. Director of Medical Education (1986 WLR 207) that the rules and norms of the prospectus are to be strictly and solemnly adhered to. The same view is also taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Nithiyan P. and S.P.Prasanna vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1994 WLR 624). The same principle is reiterated in the case of Dr.M.Ashiq Nihmathullah vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2005 WLR 697. It is clear that the prospectus is a piece of information and it is binding on the candidates as well as on the State including the machinery appointed by it for identifying the candidates for selection and admission.
20. ...........
21. ...........
22. ...........
23. ...........
24. ...........

25. In the earlier part of our order we have extracted relevant provision, viz., Instructions, etc. to Candidates as well as the Information Brochure of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, we hold that the terms and conditions of Instructions, etc. to Candidates and Information Brochure have the force of law and have to be strictly complied with. We are also of the view that no modification/relaxation can be made by the Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and application filed in violation of the Instructions, etc. to Candidates and the terms of the Information Brochure is liable to be rejected. We are also of the view that strict adherence to the terms and conditions is paramount consideration and the same cannot be relaxed unless such power is specifically provided to a named authority by the use of clear language. As said at the beginning of our order, since similar violations are happening in the cases relating to admission of students to various courses, we have dealt with the issue exhaustively. We make it clear that the above principles are applicable not only to applications calling for employment, but also to the cases relating to the admission of students to various courses. We are constrained to make this observation to prevent avoidable prejudice to other applicants at large.
(Emphasis Supplied)

16. In the impugned order, the respondent only reiterates the clause contained in the instructions to candidates, which the petitioners also undertook to abide by while filling their application forms. They have participated in the examination, attended counselling and also subjected themselves for selection after accepting all the terms and conditions, joined their course of study and completed their course of study.

17. Whether a person accepting the conditions contained in the norms for selection can challenge the said conditions after participating in selection, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1998 SC 795 (Union of India and another v. N.Chandrasekharan and others), wherein in paragraph 13 it is held thus,
"13. We have considered the rival submissions in the light of the facts presented before us. It is not in dispute that all the candidates were made aware of the procedure for promotion before they sat for the written test and before they appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore, they cannot turn around and contend later when they found they were not selected by challenging that procedure and contending that the marks prescribed for interview and confidential reports are disproportionately high and the authorities cannot fix a minimum to be secured either at interview or in the assessment on confidential report. ......."

18. The principle of estoppel is considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in various decisions.
(i) In the decision reported in AIR 1978 SC 28 (I.L.Honnegouda v. State of Karnataka and others) the Honourable Supreme Court held thus,
"In view of our judgment in Appeals Nos.883 and 898 to 905 of 1975 : (Reported in AIR 1977 SC 876) which has just been delivered and the fact that the appellant acquiesced to the 1970 Rules by applying for the post of the Village Accountant, appearing before the Recruitment Committee for interview in 1972 and 1974 and taking a chance of being selected, the present appeal which questions the constitutionality of Rules 4 and 5 of the 1970 Rules cannot be allowed. It is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs."
(ii) In 1986 (Supp) SCC 285 (Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla) in paragraph 24, the Honourable Supreme Court held thus,
"24. Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the examination. The High Court itself has observed that the setting aside of the results of examinations held in the other districts would cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there. The same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in the district of Kanpur also. They were not responsible for the conduct of the examination."

(iii) In AIR 1995 SC 1088 = (1995) 3 SCC 486 (Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir), (SCC p.9) it is held thus,
"9. ........ The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla (AIR 1986 SC 1043) it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner."
(iv) The above said decisions of the Supreme Court were followed by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in AIR 2000 MADRAS 174 (R.Murali v. R.Kamalakkannan)(FB) and in paragraph 55, question No.2 was answered thus,
"Question No.2: We hold that writ petitioners are not entitled to challenge the selection after having participated in the written examination on the principle of estoppel."

19. The above referred judgments are followed in a recent decision of a Division Bench of this Court in (2007) 5 MLJ 648 (Indian Airlines Ltd. v.K.Narayanan), wherein the contention of the management therein that person participated in selection in terms of the notification are estopped from challenging the mode of selection or the conditions contained in the instructions/rules was upheld.

20. I have also considered similar issue in W.P.(MD)Nos.9694 and 9695 of 2007 and dismissed the writ petitions by order dated 22.11.2007, holding that the rules of selection are binding on the candidates, who participate in the selection without demur. The writ appeals preferred against the said order in W.A.(MD)Nos.90 and 91 of 2008 were also dismissed by Division Bench by judgment dated 5.2.2008.

21. The petitioners, who were admitted under the State Quota having availed the subsidised rate of fee, are bound to comply with other conditions under which they got admission. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2008 (5) Supreme 249 (Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd.) in paragraph 13 held as follows:
"13. We do not find any substance in this submission advanced on behalf of the assessee. The only notification which was available to the assessee at the time of import which granted the assessee the right to import duty free goods was Notification No.158/95-Cus. Having availed of the benefit of notification, the assessee has necessarily to comply with the conditions of the notification. It goes without saying that the assessee cannot approbate and reprobate. ..."

In the decision reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171 : 2008 (2) Supreme 328 (Dhananjay Malik & Others v. State of Uttaranchal & Others) in paragraphs 7 to 11 (in SCC), the Honourable Supreme Court held thus,
"7. It is not disputed that the respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the educational qualification was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself as BPE or graduate with diploma in Physical Education. Having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the Rules.
8. In Madan Lal v. State of J&K this Court pointed out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed writ petitions. This Court further pointed out that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.
9. In the present case, as already pointed out, the respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done.
10. In a recent judgment in Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. of A.P., SCR at p.516, this Court has succinctly held that the appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur. They did not question the validity of fixing the said date before the appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from questioning the selection process.
11. We are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court could have dismissed the appeal on this score alone as has been done by the learned Single Judge."

22. The contention of the petitioners that they are not given posting as per their specialisation in Rural Health Centres, can be addressed by the respondents by accommodating the persons, either giving posting in the Medical Colleges/District Headquarters Hospitals/Taluk Headquarters Hospitals, where the advanced mode of treatment is available. Even otherwise, all the PG Degree/Diploma Holders have already completed MBBS Degree and therefore they can also serve for some time in the rural area in the absence of vacancies available, according to their specialisation.
23. Thus it is beyond doubt that the prospectus is the rule of selection, which is binding on the parties. Thus, the students admitted under the Non-Service Quota other than All India Quota are bound to comply with the conditions contained in the prospectus and the bond executed, that they shall serve for 3 years, failing which they have to remit a sum of Rs.2/Rs.3 lakhs respectively to the respondents. The challenge made by the petitioners, who were selected under the State Quota are rejected.

24. Issue No.3: Insofar as the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.215 Health and Family Welfare Department dated 12.7.2007, ordering retention of PG Degree/Diploma Certificates till the completion of two years of service, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. The bond condition nowhere stipulates retention of Diploma/Degree certificates or any other certificates. Further, the petitioners have joined in their respective PG Degree/Diploma course prior to the issuance of the impugned Government order. Hence on any account, the petitioners' certificates cannot be retained by the respondents for any reason much less for enforcing the bond condition. Even in respect of the persons joined in PG Degree/Diploma courses subsequent to the issuance of the Government order, the respondents cannot retain the said certificates as the certificates belong to the petitioners and the same are required for registration in the Medical Council, to pursue their higher studies and for joining any private institutions. What is required under the bond executed by the petitioners is that they can either serve for three years or the respondents can demand a sum of Rs.2/Rs.3 lakhs for the breach of bond conditions. If for any reason petitioners are not willing to join, the respondents can only demand the said amount and therefore the condition to retain the certificates till the completion of two years of service is arbitrary and irrational.

25. In G.O.Ms.No.215 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 12.6.2007, though a suggestion is made by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine for not issuing the P.G.Diploma/Degree Certificates till satisfactory completion of the Government Service for two years, the same was not accepted by the Government. For proper appreciation, the relevant portion of the Government Order is extracted hereunder:
"..... The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine has proposed to utilise the services of the above non-service Post Graduates and Diploma holders by appointing them temporarily in the above vacancies. Therefore he has submitted that following proposals for consideration of the Government:-
i. The candidates, possessing diploma qualification such as DA, DCH, DGO may be accommodated for appointment in Comprehensive Emergency Obstetric and Newborn Care (CEmONC) Centres and Taluk Headquarters Hospitals.
ii. The doctors having diploma qualification of other specialities may be accommodated in Taluk Hospitals having 1-3 doctors.
iii. The Doctors with specialities like DPM, DMRT, DCP and non clinical specialities may be accommodated in teaching institutions.
iv. The Post Graduate diploma/degree certificate may be issued to the doctors only on satisfactory completion of Government services for two years.
2. The Government, after examination, permit the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine to appoint the non-service Post Graduates and Diploma Holders in the existing vacancies under the control of the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services and the Director of Medical Education (i.e) in the sanctioned posts in the time scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500 with other allowances on temporary basis and allow them to work for a minimum period of 3 years in relaxation of orders issued in G.O.(Ms)No.790, Labour and Employment Department, dated 5.7.1971 and in relaxation of rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services.
3. In exercise of the power conferred under rule 48 of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services contained in Part-II of Volume-I of the Tamil Nadu Service Manual 1987, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby relaxes the rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules, so as to appoint the non-service Post Graduates and Diploma Holders temporarily in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service in the time scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500.
4. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine is requested to inform the non-service Post Graduates and Diploma Holders appointed in the above vacancies to appear for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission examination as and when conducted and get selected for their permanent absorption in Government Service."

The Government though not accepted the said suggestion to retain the certificates, the petitioners are not given the certificates till date, which is an unauthorised action on the part of the Deans of the Government Medical Colleges.

26. This Court in W.P.No.12885 to 12887 of 2008, etc., batch, by order dated 20.11.2008 considered similar issue with regard to retention of certificates/documents from the PG students. In the said order this Court held that such condition is not contemplated under the terms and conditions of the bond and therefore the respondents cannot retain the certificates and direction was issued to return the certificates individually by the respective Dean of the Medical Colleges, within a period of two weeks and if the conditions of bonds executed is not complied with, it is open to the respondents to enforce the conditions of the bonds in the manner known to law. Thus, it is clear that the Government Order imposing the condition not to return the original certificates of the petitioners till the completion of two years of service in the Government Institution as per the bond, is illegal and the same is declared as invalid.

27. Issue No.4: Insofar as the denial of permission to apply for super speciality course or higher studies by the petitioners before completion of the bond period, the petitioners are justified in contending that their right to pursue higher studies cannot be denied by the respondents merely because they have executed bonds. Right to pursue higher studies is to be treated as a human right and the same cannot be denied merely because the petitioners have executed a bond to serve for three years after completing their PG Degree/Diploma.

28. Thus, the respondents cannot deny the petitioners' right to apply for higher studies/super speciality courses under the guise of enforcing the bond conditions. The petitioners are entitled to appear for Entrance Examinations for super speciality course, which are conducted by the Government/any University/Deemed Universities and if they are selected, the respondents are bound to relieve the petitioners even if they are in temporary service as per the bond, after getting an Undertaking from the petitioners that they should serve the remaining period of bond, if not, it is well open to the respondents to collect the bond amount as mentioned in the bond with proportionate interest. On any account no PG Degree/Diploma Holder can be prevented by the respondents to pursue their higher studies and improve their knowledge of specialisation. Thus the said issue is answered against the respondents on the above terms.

29. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners that by granting relaxation of Rule 10(a)(i), respondents are violating the constitutional provision of Article 16, cannot be sustained as the PG Degree/Diploma students admitted under the Non-Service Quota becomes a Clause by itself and irrespective of any discrimination from among them, all the candidates are directed to serve in the Government Colleges/Hospitals for three years with the scale of pay and there is no discrimination by implementing the G.O.Ms.No.215, dated 12.6.2007. Thus the contention raised by the petitioners on this aspect is rejected.

30. In fine, all the writ petitions are disposed of on the following terms:
(1) The PG Degree/Diploma Holders, who applied for their Degree/Diploma course through All India Entrance Examination for selection to All India Quota seats and admitted to Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges are not bound by the terms and conditions issued by the respondents through their prospectus. Even if any candidate executed bond, it will have no effect since they have not applied for admission under the impugned prospectus.

(2) The candidates admitted in the State Quota under the Non-Service category are bound by the terms of the bond executed by them pursuant to the prospectus Clause 68(d) and on completion of their course, they are bound to serve in Government Colleges/Hospitals according to the availability of posts for three years, failing which it is open to the respondents to recover the sum of Rs.2/Rs.3 lakhs as the case may be, as per the bond conditions.

(3) No PG Degree/Diploma Holder shall be denied of their certificates in original on their completion of their course as the respondents have no jurisdiction to retain their certificates and the respondents are directed to return all the certificates of the petitioners within two weeks from the date of the receipt of copy of this order.

(4) No PG Degree/Diploma Holder, who completed their course or joined in Government Service temporarily as per the bond, shall be denied of opportunity of applying for super speciality course and if they are selected, they should be permitted to undergo the course subject to the condition that remaining period of service shall be served in the Government Institutions by the concerned person after the completion of their respective super speciality course. If not, it is open to the respondents to recover the bond amount with proportionate interest.

(5) There will be no order as to costs.

(6) Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.






vr

Medicos boycott classes

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2006/04/07/stories/2006040715450500.htm

Medicos boycott classes

Staff Reporter

Demand withdrawal of G.O. with regard to reservations for in-service candidates in P.G. courses

# Students also want suspension of VC and Registrar of the NTR University of Health Sciences
# Mild tension at Osmania Medical College after professor advises students against boycott
# Boycott to continue, says students association



SAYING IT IN THEIR OWN WAY: Medicos who boycotted classes at the Gandhi Medical College in Hyderabad on Thursday, demanding the scrapping of GO 19. — Photo: P.V. Sivakumar

HYDERABAD: Academic activity was disrupted in all the medical colleges in the State as the medicos boycotted classes demanding the withdrawal of G.O.No 19 issued with regard to reservations for in-service candidates in P.G. courses and suspension of the Vice Chancellor and Registrar of the NTR University of Health Sciences.

At Osmania Medical College (OMC) in Koti, students locked the main gate and prevented even the staff from entering the college.

The principal too was not allowed to go into the college despite requests. Raising slogans against the "injustice" being meted out to freshers in the P.G. courses they burnt the effigies of the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar.

Mild tension

Mild tension prevailed at the OMC when a professor advised the students against the boycott. Students alleged that the Head of the Department, Forensic Sciences, misbehaved with them and also used foul language. Later, students were taken into custody by the Sultan Bazar police and let off.

The Andhra Pradesh Medical Students' Association (APMSA), which is leading the agitation made it clear that the boycott would continue till their demands were met.

Naveen, general secretary of the APMSA, said medicos from all the Government medical colleges in the State reciprocated to their demand and stayed away from the classes.

The medicos were particularly angry against Vice Chancellor Sambasiva Rao and Registrar Jayakar Babu for adding nine grace marks for all the candidates, improving the chances of "failed" in-service candidates. "How can the Vice Chancellor award grace marks just to help a section of candidates," they questioned.

Decision faulted

They said such decisions were against natural justice and denied chances to meritorious candidates. They also ridiculed the justification given by the VC and said instead of ensuring academic standards the VC was working towards diluting them and putting the careers of several doctors at stake.

They also held the VC responsible for disruption of the scheduled P.G. medical counselling.

They alleged that only 220 candidates were qualified for the 313 seats reserved for in-service candidates and the marks were added across the board to benefit the failed candidates. "Though the addition of marks did not help those who had passed the test, candidates who failed benefited immensely as they could seek seats under the in-service quota," they said.

Root cause

The medicos said G.O. 19 that enhanced reservations for in-service candidates - 30 per cent in clinical and 50 per cent in non-clinical courses - was the root cause of all the problems and it should be scrapped immediately.

Centralisation of Deputation Reserve and Leave Reserve under Director of Health,Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

ABSTRACT

ANDHRA PRADESH MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES - Centralisation of Deputation Reserve and Leave Reserve under Director of Health,Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for drawal of pay and allowances to all the Medical Officers deputed to prosecute PostGraduate Course and also to those Medical Officers proceed on leave - Orders - ISSUED.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

HEALTH MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE(B2) DEPARTMENT

G.O.Ms.No. 188 Dated:30.05.2000.

Read the following:

1. G.O.Ms.No.83 HM&FW (B2) Dept., dt. 18.2.1999.

2. From the Dir.of Health, A.P., HyderabadLr.Rc.No.14833/E6.C/99, dt. 26.5.1999, 24.7.1999 and 8.12.1999.

...

O R D E R:

In the G.O. read above, orders have been issued accordingsanction for creation of (200) additional posts of Civil Assistant Surgeons in AndhraPradesh Medical and Health Services as Deputation Reserve and Leave Reserve, @ 2.8% and0.5% respectively, on the basis of a cadre strength of 6000 Civil Assistant Surgeons, witha view to augment the Medical Services in the State and improve the delivery of healthservices.

2. In the reference second read above, the Director of Health,Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has proposed to keep all the (200) posts in Reserve, and toallot the one post out of the reserve of (200) posts as and when Medical Officers go toPost Graduate Study under service quota and to entrust to the Primary HealthCentres/Community Health Centres/Government Dispensaries etc., from where they go to takeup Post Graduate Study, for drawing pay and allowances, on lien basis. In respect of theMedical Officers on deputation in other Departments/Director of Medical Education/AndhraPradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, and deputed to take up Post Graduate Study under servicequota, Post Graduate lien has to be arranged at Director of Health (Planning Wing) to drawpay and allowances for them. After completion of Post Graduate Study,the Post Graduatelien post will be taken back into the account under Reserve, and the reserve post will beallotted to the next batch of Post Graduate recruits under service quota. The posts ofMedical Officers from where the Medical Officers proceed on Post Graduate Study, will befilled up by the previous batch of Post Graduate students on return from Post GraduateStudy.

3. After careful examination of the above proposal of theDirector of Health, Andhra Pradesh, Government have decided that all the (200) postssanctioned as Deputation and Leave Reserve shall kept in reserve with the Director ofHealth, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and he shall draw and disburse the pay and allowances toall those Medical Officers deputed for Post Graduate Study under service quota to variousMedical Colleges and also to those proceed on leave.

4. Accordingly, Government hereby order that the (200) postssanctioned in the G.O. read above as Deputation and Leave Reserve shall be kept in reservewith the Director of Health, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, with the conditions that:

(a) he shall draw and disburse the pay and allowances to allthose Medical Officers who are deputed for Post Graduate Study under service quota from Primary Health Centres/Community Health Centres/Government Dispensaries/AndhraPradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad Institutions/Director of Medical EducationInstitutions/Other Departments to which Medical Officers are deputed by Director of Healthand Medical Officers who are on authorised leave.

(b) the deputation reserve and leave reserve of 200 posts is theceiling on such posts and the leave reserve shall be operated strictly to the extent andfor the period actual number of Doctors are undergoing Post Graduate Courses. Anyshortfall shall not be used to accommodate others in available vacancies in the deputationand leave reserve.

5. The Director of Health, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad shall takenecessary action in the matter.

6. This order issues with the concurrence of Finance and Planning(FW) Department, vide their U.O.No. 533/Secy./150 /A2/EBS.IX/2000, Dated 19.05.2000.

(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OFTHE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)

RACHEL CHATTERJEE

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

To

The Director of Health, A.P., Hyderabad.

Copy to:

The Director of Medical Education, A.P., Hyderabad.

The Commissioner, A.P.Vaidya Vidhana Parishad,Hyderabad.

The Accountant General, A.P., Hyderabad.

The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Hyderabad.

The Finance and Planning (FW:EBS.IX) Department.

The H.M. & F.W. (OP) Department/A-Section.

SF/SC.

//FORWARDED :: BY ORDER//



SECTION OFFICER

Reservation / deputation of in-service candidates for admission into Medical Courses in the Medical Colleges in the State

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
ABSTRACT



Andhra Pradesh Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 1997 – Reservation / deputation of in-service candidates for admission into Medical Courses in the Medical Colleges in the State - Amendment – Issued.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

HEALTH, MEDICAL & FAMILY WELFARE (E2) DEPARTMENT



G.O.Ms.No.719, Dated:16th December, 2003

Read the Following:



1. G.O.Ms.No.260, HM&FW (E2) Dept., Dt:10-7-1997

2. G.O.Ms.No.279, HM&FW (E2) Dept., Dt:9-7-2001

3. G.O.Ms.No.14, HM&FW (E2) Dept., Dt: 21-1-2002

4. G.O.Ms.No.15, HM&FW (E2) Dept., Dt. 21-1-2002

5. G.O.Ms.No.16, HM&FW (E2) Dept., Dt.21-1-2002

6. G.O.Ms.No.467, HM&FW(E2)Dept., Dt.12-12-2002

7. G.O.Ms.No.154, HM&FW (E2) Dept., Dt.12-5-2003

* * *

ORDER:



The following notification will be published in the Extraordinary issue of the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 17.12.2003:


NOTIFICATION



In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 read with sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Andhra Pradesh Act No.5 of 1983), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby makes the following amendments to the Andhra Pradesh Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 1997, issued in G.O.Ms.No.260, Health Medical and Family Welfare (E2) Department, Dated: 10th July, 1997 as subsequently amended from time to time.


AMENDMENT


In the said rules:-



(1) In rule 3,



(1) In sub-rule (2);-



(i) under explanation-1 the following shall be substituted for items (a) & (b):-



(a) two years of continuous regular tribal service,

(b) three years of continuous regular rural service; or



(ii) In the Note under explanation-2, after item (iii), the following item shall be added:-



“(iv) The 100 point roster system provided for in rule of reservation for SCs, STs and BCs in G.O.Ms.No.47, Social Welfare (CV-I) Department, dt.31.05.2000 will be followed in P.G. admissions.”



(iii) the existing items (iv) (v) and (vi) shall be re-numbered as items (v), (vi) and (vii) thereof respectively.



(2) For sub-rule (3), the following shall be substituted, namely:-



“(3) provided the reservation for the in-service candidates shall be 15% for clinical and 30% for non-clinical courses in the existing seats including increased seats in the Post Graduate Medical Courses.”



2. In rule 10,



(1) for sub-rule(viii) the following shall be substituted, namely:-



“If Graduate Diploma or Post Graduate degree seats in non-clinical courses remain vacant after third counseling and when the candidates are not available, the willing in-service candidate from among the merit list shall be entitled for deputation on par with other in-service candidates selected under service quota subject to provisions under rule 3 and such other provisions as may be applicable. The reservation of quota for in-service candidate for non-clinical course will increase to the above extent. This increase will be restricted to the seats that remain unfilled. The candidates so selected in non-clinical, pre and para clinical subjects shall submit an undertaking that the candidate shall serve the Government for a period of 10 (ten) years, default of which the entire salary amount received during the period shall be paid by the candidate to Government”.



(2) In sub-rule (ix);-



(i) clauses (a), (b), (d) & (g) shall be omitted.



(ii) the existing clauses (c), (e) and (f) shall be renamed as clauses (a), (b) and (c).



(iii) after clause (c), as so renumbered, the following clause shall be added, namely;-



“(d) to reserve 15% of seats in P.G. Medical Courses both in clinical and non-clinical subjects and also in Super Speciality Courses, towards NRI quota except in M.D. (RT) Course”.



3. In rule 11, for the opening para of sub-rule (xii), the following shall be substituted:-



“(xii) Deputation to in-service candidates selected under service quota shall be restricted to 3 years only, i.e., (36 months). The candidate selected to prosecute post graduate courses under in-service quota shall be sanctioned deputation for one course only in his service time. The candidate selected under in service quota shall be permitted to take any course of his/her choice based on merit”.



(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)



S.BHALE RAO

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT



To

The Commissioner of Printing, Stationery & Stores Purchase (Printing Wing) Deptt., Chanchalguda, Hyderabad
(with a request to publish the notification in A.P. Gazette and supply 1000 copies)

All Heads of Departments under the control of HM&FW Department.

The Registrar, NTR UHS, Vijayawada.

The Director, SVIMS, Tirupathi.

The Director, NIMS, Hyderabad.

All Principals of Medical Colleges in the State.

The Education Department.

The Social Welfare Department.

All Sections in the Department.

The Secretary to GOI, Min. of H&FW, New Delhi.

Copy to:

The P.S. to J.S. to Chief Minister

The Private Secretary to Minister (HM&FW)

The Law (E) Department.

The General Admn.(SPF) Department.

The Unit Co-ordinator, APTS, Secretariat Branch, Hyderabad.

SF/SCs.



//FORWARDED :: BY ORDER//





SECTION OFFICER





Note: This G.O. is available in the Internet and can be accessed at the address http://aponline.gov.in/apgons