Doctors not to be arrested for Medical Negligence

Judgment of Jacob Mathew case Appeal (CRI) 144-145 of 2004 which clearly states as follows

"A private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence before the Court in the form of a credible opinion given by another competent doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor. The investigating officer should, before proceeding against the doctor accused of rash or negligent act or omission, obtain an independent and competent medical opinion preferably from a doctor in government service qualified in that branch of medical practice who can normally be expected to give an impartial and unbiased opinion applying Bolam’s test to the facts collected in the investigation. A doctor accused of rashness or negligence, may not be arrested in a routine manner (simply because a charge has been levelled against him). Unless his arrest is necessary for furthering the investigation or for collecting evidence or unless the investigation officer feels satisfied that the doctor proceeded against would not make himself available to face the prosecution unless arrested, the arrest may be withheld".

Tamil Nadu IMA has approached the Tamil Nadu Government and got a GO NO.220 of 2008 Dated 4.7.2008 to implement the same Judgment in our State. It is high time IMA Head Quarters should get such an order from Central Government and also the respective state branches should approach and get a similar GO no.220 of 2008 like Tamil Nadu.

A sweet victory after tough battle for this medico

From http://www.thehindu.com/education/college-and-university/article2526527.ece

The first part of her dream has come true. Divya P. finally has a medical seat.

On Monday, she finally received an allotment order admitting her for first-year MBBS course at Dharmapuri Medical College. Even as she packs her bags, she talks about how happy she is, though a trifle sad at leaving her family behind. The victory tastes sweeter because of the tough battle that preceded it.

Divya has kyphoscoliosis, a deformity of the spine, which left her with one short leg. Her problems started when it was not considered a ‘disability' sufficient for her to be included under the disabled quota for medical admissions. She had the necessary marks, just not the ‘right kind' of disability for a medical seat.

According to the Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, she was denied admission under the special category on the ground that she did not suffer locomotor disability in her lower limbs.

Aided by voluntary organisations that sought to help her and create precedence with the case, Divya found the Madras High Court coming to her rescue.

Her lawyer R. Prabhakaran, who worked pro bono in the case, argued that under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, locomotor disability includes not only lower limbs, but includes a disability in the spine. He prayed that the PWD Act be given a liberal construction.

The judge ruled in her favour and the selection committee hurried to set right its perceived wrong, issuing her an allotment order within a week. With the aid of voluntary organisations again, she has managed to pay her fees of Rs.12,290 and is ready to go to college, though a bit belatedly.
Raring to go

“Going a month after college has started is going to be a disadvantage, I know. I must have missed the practicals, especially in anatomy. However, with hard work, I'm hoping to catch up with the rest,” Divya says resolutely.

“Divya is actually entitled to tuition and special fee waiver on grounds of disability and the fact that she would be the first graduate from her family,” says T.M.N. Deepak of the Tamil Nadu Handicapped Federation Charitable Trust.

However, she had to pay up the amount initially, and has been promised a refund.

Post Graduates to be paid Half Pay + DA from 1990

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

ABSTRACT

Tamil Nadu Medical Service- grant of stipend equivalent to half pay plus Dearness
Allowance to Service post Graduates. - Orders issued.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEALTH INDIAN MEDICINE AND HOMOEOPATHY AND FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms. No. 485 Dated 2nd April 1991

19 th Panguni Pramodhutha

Thiruvalluvar Aandu 2022

Read Again:

• G.O. Ms. No. 774, Health dated 25-4-1990

Read also:

• From the Director of Medical Education Roc No. 40761 / E3/1/89 dated 12-3-1990.

----
Order:
In G.O.Ms. No. 774 Health, dated 25-4-1990 the Government ordered that the stipend
paid to the following categories Hospitals be enhanced as under :-
(i) The stipend for the CRRIS in Government Hospital in this state be enhanced from Rs. 750/- p.m. to Rs. 1000/- p.m. inclusive of the mess compensatory allowance
(ii) The Stipend for non - Service candidates undergoing post graduate Degree and Diploma courses in this state be enhanced from Rs. 800/-P.m.toRs. 1050/-p.m.
(iii) The stipend for Service candidates undergoing postgraduate degree and diploma courses in the Government Medical College in this state, who have not completed 5 year of Service and whose Services are yetto beregularised be enhanced from Rs.800/-toRs. 1050 /-p.m.
(iv) The Stipend of regular Service candidates who have not completed 5 years of Service be enhanced from Rs. 950/- p.m. to Rs. 1200/- p.m.
(V) The stipend of regular Service candidates who have completed 5 years of Service be enhanced from Rs. 1050/- to Rs. 1300/- p.m.
2. The Director of Medical Education has now recommended to the Government that all Service post Graduates be sanctioned half pay + Dearness Allowances in lieu of stipend. The Government after careful examination accept the recommendation of the Director of
Medical Education.
3. The Government direct that all Service post graduates shall be paid stipend equivalent to half pay + dearness allowance with effect from the date of this order.
4. This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide its U.O.No. 1445 /Fs(P)91 dated 25-3-1991.

(By Order of the Governor)

Denied MBBS seat, girl moves High Court

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article2148324.ece

Eighteen-year-old M. Vanathi of Dindigul suffers from “congenital absence of left hand.” She has the left arm but no palm or fingers on it. However, the deformity did not deter her from scoring 1,139 out of 1,200 marks in the recently held Plus Two public examinations.

The girl aspired to be a doctor and applied for medical seat under the quota for physically challenged but only to be rejected by the Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, on the ground that people with deformity on the upper limbs were not eligible for selection.

Pained and dejected over the decision, the girl approached the Madras High Court Bench here on Thursday stating that her dream of becoming a doctor would be shattered and all the efforts put in by her to score a cut-off of 191 marks would go waste if she was not denied admission.

The girl claimed in her affidavit that the deformity was in no way a stumbling block for carrying out her day-to-day activities as she had trained herself even to ride a cycle and cook food at home. Her left arm was not numb. She could feel the sensations which are essential for a doctor to diagnose a patient.

Pointing out that she had already been selected for pursuing an engineering course, the girl said that it was not fair to deny her a medical seat without even assessing her capabilities. When an engineering course could be offered despite the disability, why not medicine, she wondered.

Her counsel U. Nirmala Rani contended that exclusion of such candidates from studying medical courses was in violation of three per cent quota earmarked for physically challenged students under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

After hearing arguments advanced by her, Justice K. Venkataraman passed an interim order directing the Director of Medical Education to keep one medical seat vacant until the disposal of the case. He also ordered the Director to file a detailed counter affidavit.

Tamil Nadu Leave Rules — Maternity Leave — Enhancement of Maternity Leave to 180 days

ABSTRACT

Tamil Nadu Leave Rules — Maternity Leave — Enhancement of Maternity Leave to 180 days — Orders — Issued.

PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (FR.III) DEPARTMENT G.O.(Ms) No.51                                                                                                   Dated: 16.05.2011

sam^-uffin^-al 2,

Olesusirksairi 46tio^-r61 2042

Read:

(1)       G.O.(Ms) No.279, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR.II) Department, dated 11.03.1980.

(2)       G.0.(Ms) No.138, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR.III) Department, dated 26.02.1983.

(3)       G.O.(Ms) No.237, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR.III) Department, dated 29.061993.

ORDER:-

In the Government Order 1^st read above, the Maternity Leave admissible to married women Government Servants was enhanced to 90 days which may be spread over from the pre-confinement rest to post-confinement recuperation at the option of the Government Employee. It was also ordered therein that the Maternity Leave will not be admissible to women Government Servants with more than three children. Further, in the Government Order 2^nd read above, necessary amendments to Rule 101(a) of the Fundamental Rules were issued, based on the executive orders issued in the Government Order 1^st read above. Based on the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu third pay commission and on par with Central Government Employees, orders were issued in the Government Order 3^rd read above to the effect that a woman Government Servant with less than two surviving children be allowed Maternity Leave for a period of 90 days from the date of its commencement.

2.                          The Government after careful consideration direct that the Maternity

Leave admissible to married women Government Servants which is 90 days at present

..2..

be enhanced to 180 days which may be spread over from the pre-confinement rest to post-confinement recuperation at the option of the woman Government Servant. The Maternity Leave will be admissible to married women Government Servants with less than two surviving Children.

3.               Necessary amendments to Fundamental Rules will be issued separately.

(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)

R. KANNAN
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

To

All Secretaries to Government, Chennai-9. All Departments of Secretariat, Chennai-9. The Secretary, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Chennai-9.

All Heads of Departments.

All District Collectors.

All District Judges.

All District Magistrates.

The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai-6.

The Registrar, High Court, Chennai-104.

Copy to:

The Secretary to Chief Minister, Chennai-9.

The Private Secretary to Chief Secretary to Government, Chennai-9 The Private Secretary to Principal Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Chennai-9.

The Private Secretary to Principal Secretary to Government,

Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Training) Department, Chennai-9.

All Sections in Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Chennai - 9. S.F./S.C.

//FORWARDED BY ORDER//

Notification of Ayurveda, Siddha, and Unani Tibb Registered Medical Practitioners as persons practicing the modern scientific system of medicine

ABSTRACT
Indian System of Medicine – Notification of Ayurveda, Siddha, and Unani Tibb
Registered Medical Practitioners as persons practicing the modern scientific system of
medicine under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 – Orders – Issued.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (IM 2 -2) DEPARTMENT
G.O. (Ms) No. 248 Dated : 08.09.2010
Thiruvalluvar Aandu 2041
Aavani 23
ORDER :
The following Notification will be published in the Tamil Nadu Government
Gazettee .
NOTIFICATION.
WHEREAS, the rights of practitioners of Indian System of Medicine are
protected under section 17(3) (b) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970
(Central Act 48 of 1970) ;
AND WHEREAS, as per section 2 (1) (e) of the said Act, “Indian Medicine“
means the system of Indian Medicine commonly known as Ashtang Ayurveda, Siddha
or Unani Tibb whether supplemented or not by such modern advances, as the Central
Council of Indian Medicine may declare by notification from time to time ;
AND WHEREAS , the Central Council of Indian Medicine in its Notification
F.No.28-5/2004-AY.(MM), dated the 19th May 2004, has clarified that the word “Modern
Advances” in clause (e) of section 2 (1) of the said Act as advances made in the
various branches of modern scientific medicine in all its branches of internal
medicine , surgery, gynaecology and obstetrics , anesthesiology, diagnostic procedures
and other technological innovation made from time to time and declare that the courses
and curriculum conducted and recognized by the Central Council of Indian Medicine are
supplemented with such modern advances ;
AND WHEREAS , the Central Council of Indian Medicine has improved and
strengthened the syllabus of Indian Medicine by including subjects with regard to
National Programmes like National Malaria Eradication programmes, Tuberculosis,
Leprosy, Family Welfare Programme, Reproductive and Child Health Programme,
Immunisation Programme, AIDS, Cancer etc ;
-2-
Now, THEREFORE, under sub - clause (iii) of clause (ee) of rule 2 of the Drugs
and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby declares every
registered medical practitioner holding the qualifications specified in the second, third
or fourth Schedule to the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (Central Act
48 of 1970) and Part III of the Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Siddha System of Medicine
(Development and Registration of Practitioners) Act , 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 1997)
and registered in the Medical Register of the State maintained under the aforesaid
Acts, as a person practicing the modern scientific system of medicine for the purposes
of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Central Act 23 of 1940.)
(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)
V.K.SUBBURAJ
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
To
The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of
Indian Medicine and Homoeopathy,
Arumbakkam, Chennai – 106.
The Works Manager,
Government General Press,
Chennai.- 2 (for publication of Notification in the Government Gazette)
The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council,
Arumbakkkam, Chennai – 106.
The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine,
Arumbakkkam, Chennai – 106.
The Director General of Police,
Chennai – 4,
SF/SC
// Forwarded / By Order //
SECTION OFFICER

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

Admission to integrated M.Ch should be on merit: court

http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/21/stories/2009052153720400.htm

Staff Reporter

“Any admission for 2009-10 contrary to the ruling shall stand set aside”

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has ruled that the 5-year integrated M.Ch. (neurosurgery) course be treated as a superspecialty course and admission be made based only on merit without following the rule of reservation.

A division bench comprising Justices P.Jyothimani and Aruna Jagadeesan gave the ruling while disposing of two writ appeals and a writ petition. The Bench made it clear that for admission to the course the qualification shall not be undergraduation in medicine and any admission made for 2009-10 contrary to the above said ruling shall stand set aside. The writ appeals from Dr.N.Bharath and Dr.S.Deebalakshmi sought to quash a single judge order passed in May 2007, which had held that there was no unreasonableness in the roster system sought to be introduced by a Government Order. The writ petition sought to declare Clause 54(b) and annexure relating to the superspeciality 5-year course in M.Ch. (neurosurgery) under the prospectus for admission to post-graduate course for 2009-10 as invalid in so far as it provides for reservation in category of superspeciality post graduate medical course and reservation by roster as contrary to Article 15 of the Constitution.

He also submitted that it was also against the judgment of the Supreme Court and the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994 relating to reservation to admissions. Petitioner, K.G.Arun Raj also prayed for a direction against the respondents to fill up seats from and out of service candidates as per the merit list and grant admission to him. The judges in their order said that the roster system is not application for admission to educational institutions as Section 4 of the Act of 45 of 1994 contemplates admission on an annual basis.

They also set aside Clause 8 of the prospectus/General instruction to candidates issued by the respondents for 2007-08 denying reservation in case the seats are lesser than eight.

Tamil Nadu Government Doctors Association (TNGDA) Official eLibrary: Instructions from DPH regarding sanction of increments to Assistant Surgeons

Tamil Nadu Government Doctors Association (TNGDA) Official eLibrary: Instructions from DPH regarding sanction of increments to Assistant Surgeons

Instructions of Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu

Office of the Director General of Police,
Admiralty House, Govt. Estate,
Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

S.NO. 119825/1 &0/CON.97. -Dated : 27.05.97

MEMORANDUM

Instructions were issued in Chief office Memo vide (C.N.) 8523/1 & O Confd 1/91) dated 6.4.91 that when complaints of cognizable offences are received against Medical Practitioners relating to criminal negligence in the course of Medical treatment arrests need not be resorted to as a matter of course. It was also emphasized in the memo that when the Medical practitioner is involved in such police complaint the fact should be brought to the notice of higher supervisory Officers who will keep a close watch on the progress of the case to ensure that there is no vindictive or vexations action.

2. Inspite of these specific instructions an instance has come to notice where in a similar complaints of negligence on the part of a Medical Practitioners arrests have been made resulting in avoidable criticism against the Police. It is once again reiterated that in such cases arrests should not be resorted to as a matter of course. The cases will be duly investigated and any action should be fully supported by a documentary evidence, supervisory approval strengthened with the opinion of the Law office.

3. These instructions will be followed in future.

4. Please acknowledge the receipt.

200 Point Roster : G.O.Ms.No. 241 Dated 29.1 0.2007

Public Services - Reservation of appointments in Public Services - Fixation of 3.5 
percentage reservation for Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims 
respectively - Revised Roster - Orders - Issued.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (K) DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms.No. 241 Dated 29.1 0.2007

Read:
1. G.O.Ms.No.85, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(R) Department, dated 6.5.2000.
2. G.O.Ms.No.105, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S)Department, dated 20.6.2000.
3. Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 412007.
4. From the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Letter No.442URND-D2107, dated 18.10.2007.

In the Government Order first read above, orders were issued providing 2 turns for Most Backward Classes and De-notified Communities within every 10 turns. In the Government order second read above amendments were issued to General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services that the vacancies arising on and from the 6th May 2000 be filled up as per Schedule 111 and all selections for appointment be started afresh from serial number one in the said Schedule III with effect on and from the said date.

2. In the Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 412007 third read above, His Excellency, the Governor of Tamil Nadu has promulgated the Tamil Nadu Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims (Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions including private Educational lnstitutions and of appointments or posts in the services under the State) Ordinance, 2007 providing reservation for appointments or posts in the services under the State for the Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims at three and one-half percent and three and one-half percent, respectively, within the thirty percent reservation for Backward Classes.

3. In pursuance of the above ordinance, the Government direct that the existing 100 point roster prescribed in Schedule-III to the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services be revised into 200 point roster as in the annexure to this Government order so as to provide reservation for the Backward Class Christians and the Backward Class Muslims at three and one-half percent and three and one-half percent respectively, within the thirty percent reservation available for Backward Classes. The Government also direct that the above 200 point roster shall be given effect from 15.9.2007 and the vacancies arising on and from the 15'September 2007 shall be filled up as per the 200 point roster and all selections for appointment shall be started afresh from serial number one of the 200 point roster with effect on and from the said date.

4. Necessary amendments to the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules shall be issued separately.

//BY ORDER OF THE GOYERNOR//

T.S.SRIDHAR
SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

To
All Secretaries to Governments, Secretariat, Channaj-9,
All Head of Departments,
All District Collectors,
All Public Sector Undertakings,
The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission , Chennai-2,
The Registrar, High Court, Chennai-104,
All District Magistrates and District Judges.
Copy to:
The Secretary-II to the Chief Minister,Chennai-9,
The Senior Personal Assistant to the Minsters,
(Electricity / Backward Classes / Adi Dravidar Welfare) Chennai-9,
The Private Secretary to Secretaries to Government,
(P&AR/BC,MBC and MWIAD&TWILaw) Chennai-9,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department,
Chennai-9 (for issue of amendments to the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules),
All Sections in Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Chennai-9.
All Departments of Secretariat, Ghennai-9.

SECTION OFFICER

ANNEXURE
1. General Turn
2. Scheduled Castes
3. Most Backward Classes and De~otifiedC ommunities
4. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
5. General Turn
6. Scheduled Castes
7. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
8. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
9. General Turn
10. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
11. General Turn
12. Scheduled Castes
13. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
14. Backward Class Christians
15. General Turn
16. Scheduled Castes
17. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
18. Backward Classes (Other than Backward.Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
19. General Turn
20. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
21. General Turn
22. Scheduled Castes
23. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
24. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
25. General Turn
26. Scheduled Castes
27. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
28. Backward Class Muslims
29. General Turn
30. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
31. General Turn
32. Scheduled Castes
33. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
34. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
35. General Turn
36. Scheduled Castes
37. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
38. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
39. General Turn
40. Backward Class Christians
41. General Turn
42. Scheduled Castes
43. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
44. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
45. General Turn
46. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
47. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
48. General Turn
49. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
50. Scheduled Tribes
51. General Turn
52. Scheduled Castes
53. Most Backwarti Classes and Denotified Communities
54. Backward Class Muslims
55. General Turn
56. Scheduled Castes
57. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
58. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class ,Muslims)
59. General Turn
60. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
61. General Turn
62. Scheduled Castes
63. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
64. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
65. General Turn .
66. Scheduled Castes
67. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities .-
68. Backward Class Christians
69. General Turn
70. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
71. General Turn
72. Scheduled Castes
73. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
74. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
75. General Turn
76. Scheduled Castes
77. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
78. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
79. General Turn
80. Backward Class Muslims
81. General Turn
82. Scheduled Castes
83. Most Backward Classes and Denotif~ed Communities
84. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
85. General Turn
86. Scheduled Castes
87. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
88. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
89. General Turn
90. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
91. General Turn
92. Scheduled Castes
93. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
94. Backward Class Christians
95. General Turn
96. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
97. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
98. General Turn
99. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
100. General Turn.
101. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
102. Scheduled Castes
103. General Turn
104. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
105. General Turn
106. Scheduled Castes
107. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
108. Backward Class Muslims
109. General Turn
110. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
1 1 1. General Turn
112. Scheduled Castes
113. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
114. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
1 15. General Turn
116. Scheduled Castes
117. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
118. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
119. General Turn
120. Backward Class Christians
121. General Turn
122. Scheduled Castes
123. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
124. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
125. General Turn
126. Scheduled Castes
127. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
128. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
129. General Turn
130. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
131. General Turn
132. Scheduled Castes
133. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
134. Backward Class Muslims
135. General Turn
136. Scheduled Castes
137. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
138. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
139. General Turn
140. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
141. General Turn
142. Scheduled Castes
143. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
144. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
145. General Turn
146. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
147. Backward Class Christians
148. General Turn
149. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
150. Scheduled Tribes
1.51. General Turn
152. Scheduled Castes
153. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Commun~ties
154. Backward Classes (Other than Backward.Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
155. General Turn
156. Scheduled Castes
157. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
158. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
159. General Turn
160. Backward Class Muslims
161. General Turn
162. Scheduled Castes
163. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
164. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
165. General Turn
166. Scheduled Castes
167. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
168. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
169. General Turn
170. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
17 1 . General Turn
172. Scheduled Castes
173. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
174. Backward Class Christians
175. General Turn
176. Scheduled Castes
177. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
178. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
179. General Turn
180. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
181. General Turn
182. Scheduled Castes
183. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
184. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
185. General Turn
186. Scheduled Castes
187. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
188. Backward Class Muslims
189. General Turn
190. Backward Classes (Other than Backward ClassChristians and Backward Class Muslims)
191. General Turn
192. Scheduled Castes
193. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
194. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
195. General Turn
196. Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities
197. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
198. General Turn
199. Backward Classes (Other than Backward Class Christians and Backward Class Muslims)
200. General Turn.

Special Commissioner and
Secretary to Government

// True Copy //

SECTION OFFICER