CML Seniority is the basis for Associate Professor Promotion

http://judis.nic.in/judis_chennai/qrydisp.aspx?filename=29507


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated:- 02.02.2011

Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.RAJA

Writ Petition Nos.26180, 26576, 26585, 27056 and 27217 of 2010 & M.P. Nos.1 of 2010

Dr.R.Senthilnathan ..Petr. in WP.26180/10

1.Dr.A.Rathinavel
2.Dr.S.R.Dhamodharan
3.Dr.C.P.M.Chandrasekar
4.Dr.S.C.Vivekanandan
5.Dr.M.N.Karthi
6.Dr.S.Peer Mohammed
7.Dr.V.Ravichandran
8.Dr.David Pratheep Kumar
9.Dr.D.Maruthu Pandian ..Petrs. in WP.26576/10

1.Dr.R.Velmurugan
2.Dr.B.Mariappan
3.Dr.C.Sankkara Barathi ..Petrs. in WP.26585/10

Dr.H.Sivanarutchelvan ..Petr. in WP.27056/10

1.Dr.Y.Arul Prakash
2.Dr.S.Thilagar
3.Dr.J.Chitra
4.Dr.M.Jesu Thangam
5.Dr.A.J.S.Praveen
6.Dr.P.M.Suresh
7.Dr.R.Prabhakaran
8.Dr.D.Joseph
9.Dr.S.R.Kannan
10.Dr.K.Krishnan Kutty
11.Dr.Y.Kingsly Jebasingh
12.Dr.A.Vasuki Nathan
13.Dr.J.Edward Johnson
14.Dr.S.Frank Davis Daniel
15.Dr.P.John Christopher ..Petrs. In WP.27217/10

vs.

Medical Council of India,
rep. By its Secretary,
Pocket-14, Sector-8,
Dwarka Phase-I,
New Delhi 110 077.

The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. By its Principal
Secretary to the Government,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.

Director of Medical Education,
Periyar EVR Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai-10. ..R1 to R3 in all the Writ Petns.

The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. By its Principal
Secretary to the Government,
Finance Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009. ..R4 in WP.27056/10

Dr.G.V.Manoharan
D.D.Krishnan
Dr.Chandramouoleeswaran
Dr.V.Kamaraj
Dr.Arunan
Dr.K.kamaraj
Dr.Saravanakumaran
Dr.N.Bhaskaran
Dr.Gomathy Karmegam
Dr.Abdul Khadar
Dr.Govardhan
Dr.Manickavel
Dr.Asokan
Dr.Kalaiselvi
Dr.V.Ganesan ..R4 to R18 in WP.26180 of 2010
(R4 to R18 impleaded
vide order passed in
M.P.No.2/2010)

Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief as stated therein.

For Petitioners in
WP No.27217 of 2010 : Mr.P.Gadson Swaminath

For Petitioners in
other Writ Petitions : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram
Senior Counsel for Ms.C.Uma

For Respondents-2 & 3 : Mr.G.Sankaran,
in all WPS & R-4 Special Govt. Pleader,
in WP.27056 of 2010 Assisted by Mr.S.Naganathan-GA

For R4 to R18 in
WP No.26180 of 2010 : Mr.C.Kanagaraj
for Mr.K.P.Narayanan

COMMON ORDER

Writ Petition Nos.26180, 26576, 26585 and 27056 of 2010 have been filed by the respective petitioners serving as Government Medical Officers in the State of Tamil Nadu, seeking for issuance of writs of mandamus to forbear the 3rd respondent-Director of Medical Education, Chennai-10, from conducting any counselling for appointment to the post of Associate Professors and Professors in the Tamil Nadu Medical Services in any discipline based on the Draft Seniority List sent along with the proceedings of the said respondent bearing Reference No.78809/E1/1/10, dated 07.10.2010, sent to all the Deans of Medical Colleges/Medical Superintendents and Director of Upgraded Institutes; and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to await the preparation of the final speciality seniority list comprising the panel of Assistant Professors for promotion to the posts of Associate Professors and Professors for the year 2010-11 and to complete the process of re-fitment of Professors in 1511 posts and Assistant Professors in 1420 posts till date in accordance with G.O. Ms. No.354, dated 23.10.2009, before conducting the aforesaid counselling.

2. Another Writ Petition in W.P. No.27217 of 2010 has been preferred with a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 viz., the Principal Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai-9, and the Director of Medical Education, Chennai-10, to complete forthwith the process of filling of the existing vacancies of Associate Professors and Professors in all specialities in various Government Medical Colleges in the State as initiated by the 3rd respondent as per his proceedings in Ref. No.78809/E1/1/10, dated 07.10.2010, in accordance with the Medical Council of India Regulations as well as G.O. Ms. No.354 (Health and Family Welfare Department B2), dated 23.10.2009.

3. To-day, on the cases being posted for filing counter, Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents/State requested this Court for grant of further time enabling the respondents concerned to file counter-affidavit and, for such request, Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the above referred four writ petitions, raised strong objections by stating that if the matters stand adjourned for filing counter, the prayer made would be rendered infructuous since counselling has begun now and it would get completed in the course of this week. So stating, learned Senior Counsel requested this Court to right away take up the matters for disposal. In view of the urgency said to have been involved, this Court, with the consent of all the parties, has taken up the cases and heard the respective counsels appearing on either side at length. The Writ Petitions, which are interrelated and revolving around G.O. Ms. No.354, dated 23.10.2009, are disposed of by this Common Order.

4. For better appreciation, the case of the petitioners is briefly outlined here-under. The petitioners, after completing their MBBS Course, appeared in the Examinations conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) and, on emerging successful, they were appointed to the posts of Assistant Surgeon in the Tamil Nadu Medical Services. At the time of appointment, the successful candidates in the TNPSC were provided with an entry point number known as Civil Medical List (in short 'CML' Number) based on the marks obtained by them in the TNPSC Examination and other reservations including communal reservation. Subsequently, on completing their PG (Post Graduation) courses in various specialities and super-specialities, the petitioners continued to serve as Assistant Surgeons at various Government Hospitals/Health Centres in the State of Tamil Nadu. After sometime, they were relieved by the Director of Medical Service and posted by the 3rd respondent as Assistant Professors in the respective specialities. As per the MCI (Medical Council of India) Regulations, an Assistant Professor is eligible for promotion to the post of Associate Professor on completion of 2 years of service as Assistant Professor in a recognized Medical College. In the present cases, 3 years of teaching experience was prescribed as the minimum experience for promotion to the post of Associate Professor for those who undertook the 2 year Higher/Super Speciality Course. The petitioners, having completed the said 2 year Super Speciality Course, gained sufficient teaching experience in the Higher/Super Speciality Medical Education. As per the norms prescribed by the first respondent/MCI, the petitioners were eligible to be promoted to the post of Associate Professor long back; but, due to lack of adequate promotional opportunities and stagnancy at various levels in the cadre system, the petitioners could not get their due promotions. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu Govt. Doctors Association (TNGDA) made a request to the 2nd respondent for providing the Government Doctors with Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) since promotional opportunities for the Government Doctors in the Medical Education were deficient. After considering the request made by TNGDA, the 2nd respondent issued G.O. Ms. No.194, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 07.07.2009, constituting a Committee headed by the Special Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, to look into the promotional opportunities of Government Doctors at various levels. The Committee, after studying the situation and possible modalities to create better promotional opportunities to the Government Doctors, submitted its recommendations vide letter dated 03.08.2009. After considering the recommendations contained in the said letter, the first respondent issued G.O. Ms. No.354, Health and Family Welfare (B2) Department, dated 23.10.2009, prescribing the guidelines for promotion and other service conditions to the Government Doctors. Complaining that the said G.O. has not been applied in their case in its letter and spirit, the petitioners in the aforementioned 4 writ petitions have approached this Court for the issuance of mandamus as stated above.
5. Arguing the case for the petitioners in the above said four writ petitions, Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel made her submissions in four segments.
(a) The respondents are bound to follow the Seniority criteria as provided in G.O. Ms. No.354, dated 23.10.2009, for promotion to the posts of Associate Professor/Professor at the time of counselling for the year 2010. Instead of following the said Government Order, by proceedings dated 07.10.2010, addressed to the Deans of Medical Colleges/Medical Superintendents and Director of Upgraded Institutes, the 3rd respondent issued the Draft Seniority List of the Government Doctors in each speciality for the purpose of promotion to the post of Professors and Associate Professors, asking for the particulars of all the Medical Officers for preparation of the Final Seniority List. It is found in the list that seniority was determined based on the CML (Civil Medical List) Number assigned to the Medical Officers during entry into the service and not the Speciality Specific Seniority. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the guidelines contained in G.O. No.354 were grossly violated while preparing the Draft Seniority List by following the CML Number and unjustly ignoring the Speciality Specific Seniority. This has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners since the Government Doctors who are less experienced in the respective specific speciality will steal a march over the Doctors like the petitioners who are seniors to them.
(b) Once the petitioners acquired Speciality Specific Seniority, such seniority alone should be taken as the criterion for promotion irrespective of the ranking given as per the CML Number.
(c) While preparing the Seniority List of the petitioners, the respondents should have reconciled clauses-(iv) and (vii) of G.O. Ms. No.354 so as to avoid the adverse prospect of overlooking the Speciality Specific Seniority.
(d) While considering a similar case in W.P. No.2775 of 2008, by orders dated 09.06.2010, this Court has categorically held that final seniority or date of promotion is the criteria for future promotion to the next higher cadre and not the CML Seniority. The said decision being applicable in all fours to the facts of the present case, since the 3rd respondent had ignored the said conclusion while preparing the Draft Seniority List of Assistant Professors, this Court may direct the authorities to follow the said order of this Court.
Relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in Challa Jaya Bhaskar vs. Thungathurthi Surendar (Manu/SC/0870/2010) to substantiate her plea that the procedure adopted in the present case is unjust, learned Senior Counsel ultimately pleaded this Court to issue suitable directions for exclusive consideration of Speciality Specific Seniority in the case of the petitioners without reference to the CML Number assigned at the entry point into the service.

6. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents/State, on instructions, would submit that the authorities scrupulously followed G.O. No.354, which provides that the Director of Medical Education Unit's Seniority list will be of two categories viz., (a) General seniority for all those Doctors with MBBS and Diploma Degree and (b) Specialist Seniority ie., Speciality-wise seniority for those with Master Degree and or Super Speciality Degree. Further, both the general seniority and speciality seniority will be based on their seniority in the CML. It is stressed that, after getting the seniority in their speciality, their future promotions would be based on the speciality specific seniority and they would not have further lien on their seniority in Civil Medical List for the purpose of promotion. However, seniority in Civil Medical List would be relevant only for the limited purpose of fixing inter-se seniority relating to those who joined their speciality in the Director of Medical Education Side. Thus, CML Seniority would be relevant only to fix the seniority in the Speciality Specific Seniority.
It is further submitted that when a person joins any speciality under the Directorate of Medical Education, his iner-se seniority in the speciality would depend on the person's seniority in the CML, because, CML would continue to be the criteria to decide the speciality specific seniority till the Associate Professor Level.
The counselling scheduled is for selecting the persons for the post of Associate Professors and, in line with the guidelines issued in the G.O., seniority ranking allotted by the respondents as per CML will have to be taken into account to decide the Speciality Specific Seniority. As there is no specific rule to ignore the seniority obtained by the petitioners in the CML, the contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners to ignore the ranking assigned as per the CML and to independently consider the Speciality Specific Seniority cannot be appreciated.
Referring to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.2775 of 2008, it is submitted that the issue decided by this Court in that case was in respect of promotion to the post of Director and Superintendent, which is above the grade of Associate Professor and, in such a case, it was held that seniority in the Feeder category should be taken into account without considering the seniority mentioned in the CML. Thus, the said decision could be made applicable to those cases relating to promotion to the post equivalent to Professor and not for other persons as that of the petitioners, who are aspiring for promotion to the post of Associate Professors.
Referring to the Annexure to the Letter of the 2nd respondent, dated 31.01.2011, learned Special Government Pleader states that the special seniority has already been assigned to the Medical Teachers working in the Directorate of Medical Education Side and other Directorates; thus, the petitioners are not justified in alleging that G.O. Ms. No.354 is not complied with in the present case.
With regard to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners citing the decision of the Apex court in Challa Jaya Bhaskar's case (referred supra), it is submitted that the ratio decided therein is completely on a different issue as it was held in that case that those belonging to non-teaching line could not be appointed till they acquire the PG degree. Since that issue is not the subject matter of the present Writ Petitions, the ratio sought to be applied by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners will not be relevant to the case on hand.
Ultimately, it is submitted that the respondents have scrupulously adhered to the guidelines of the G.O. in its letter and spirit and such aspect is reflected in the letter of the 2nd respondent and under such circumstances, there being no scope for interference at all, the prayer of the petitioners should be summarily rejected.

7. In support of the stand taken by the learned Special Government Pleader, Mr.Gadson Swaminath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No.27217 of 2010 and Mr.C.Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for R-4 to R-18 in W.P. No.26180 of 2010, would submit that the aforesaid 4 writ petitions are totally misconceived in view of the fact that the norms of the counselling are in total compliance with the guidelines issued by way of G.O. No.354 and under such circumstances, if the counselling is stalled, great prejudice would be caused to all the aspirants in general.

8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on either side. It is seen that the petitioners, after completing their MBBS Course, were appointed through the TNPSC to the post of Assistant Surgeon in various disciplines of the Tamil Nadu Medical Services and, at the time of their entry into service, CML ranking was assigned to the respective candidates based on the marks secured by them in the Examinations held by the TNPSC. After joining service, they also completed their respective P.G. Courses and subsequently, on pursuing the Higher/Super Speciality Education in various disciplines, they continued for sometime as Assistant Surgeons at various Hospitals in the State of Tamil Nadu and later on, they were posted as Assistant Professors in different Medical Colleges in the State. Since the promotional avenues from the cadre of Assistant Professor were not bright due to lack of promotional opportunities and stagnancy in the cadre system, the TNGDA made a representation to the 2nd respondent, who, after due consideration of the grievance, passed G.O.Ms. No.194, dated 07.07.2009, constituting a committee go into the issue, whereupon, the Committee submitted is recommendation vide letter dated 03.08.2008, based on which, G.O. Ms. No.354, dated 23.10.2009, came to be passed containing necessary guidelines governing promotion.

9. At this juncture, it would be of much relevance to quote below clauses-(i) to (vii) of G.O. Ms. No.354, prescribed in the from of guidelines in respect of 'DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION SIDE":-
(i) The Medical Officers working in the Medical College Hospitals, Institutions and dispensaries under the control of Directorate of Medical Education shall come under the Director of Medical Education Unit.
(ii) The Director of Medical Education will maintain the seniority list of the doctors in this unit and will effect the promotions.
(iii) The Director of Medical Education unit's seniority list will be of two categories (1) General seniority for all those doctors with MBBS and diploma degree. (2) Specialist seniority - Speciality wise seniority for those with master degree and or super speciality degree.
(iv) Both the general seniority and speciality seniority will be based on their seniority in Civil Medical List. After getting the seniority in their speciality, their future promotions would be based on the speciality - specific seniority and they would not have further lien on their seniority in Civil Medical List for the purpose of promotion. However seniority in Civil Medical List would be relevant only for the limited purpose of fixing inter-se seniority relative to those joining their speciality in the Director of Medical Education side. No equivalent promotion can be claimed by any specialist based on inter-se Civil Medical List seniority on account of doctors in some other speciality. Civil Medical List seniority would after that be relevant only to fix the seniority in the speciality specific seniority list, and after that, it is that seniority list which would operate as illustrated in the annexure to this order.
(v) For higher level posts and posts in common pool, the Civil Medical List seniority will be the basis for promotion.
(vi) Entry into Director of Medical Education side against particular vacancy in any speciality should strictly be on the basis of Civil Medical List seniority, provided the person is eligible otherwise.
(vii) Once a person joins any speciality under Director of Medical Education, his inter-se seniority in the speciality would depend on the person's seniority in the Civil Medical List. The Civil Medical List would continue to decide the speciality specific seniority, till the Associate Professor level. However, any person getting promoted under any speciality would not entitle other persons in other specialities to be promoted similarly, if they are senior in the Civil Medical List to such a person. Similarly, any person in any speciality would not be entitled to get a promotion, based on a junior in the same speciality having got such a promotion in the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, (ESI) and Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine side."

A close reading of the above clauses would go to show that the G.O. contemplates two categories of seniority concerning the Director of Medical Education Unit ie., (i) General seniority for those Medical Officers with MBBS and Diploma Degree and (ii) Specialist Seniority-Speciality-wise Seniority for those with master degree and or super speciality degree. In that context, the blunt submission of the learned Senior Counsel to the effect that the petitioners, who have acquired speciality specific seniority should be considered on the basis of such seniority for further promotional post of Associate Professor without taking into consideration the original seniority allotted by way of CML ranking, would fall to ground in the light of the G.O. itself which provides necessary guidelines as extracted above. A conjoint reading of clause Nos.(iv) and (vii) would make the position vividly clear that both the general seniority and speciality seniority would be based on their seniority in the CML and further, after getting the seniority in the respective speciality, the future promotions of the persons falling under the latter category would be based on the speciality specific seniority and they would not have further lien for the purpose of promotion. It is further made clear that, at any rate, seniority in the CML would be relevant only for the limited purpose of fixing inter-se seniority relating to those who joined the speciality in the Directorate of Medical Education Side. Moreover, Clause-vii is very specific that once a person joins any speciality under the Directorate of Medical Education, his inter-se seniority in the speciality would depend on the person's seniority in the CML, which would continue to be the criteria to decide the speciality specific seniority till the Associate Professor level.

10. From the above, it could be well discerned that the G.O. is very straight on the point that upto the grade of Associate Professor, while considering the aspect of promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor level, the seniority gained by way of CML Ranking by the candidates, who later acquired speciality specific seniority and serving under the Director of Medical Education, would be definitely taken as the criteria. In other words, when clause Nos.(iv) and (vii) of the Government Order in question are reconciled, the only probable conclusion is that for all purposes of promotion to the post of Associate Professor to which the petitioners are vying, inter-se seniority in the Speciality would undoubtedly depend on the seniority in the CML ranking. That being so, this Court does not find any substance in the claim of the petitioners that the Draft Seniority List drawn, based on CML ranking, is contrary to the norms.

11. As regards the order, dated 09.06.2010, passed in W.P. No.2775 of 2008, taking note of the facts involved therein that promotion was sought for to the post of Professor of Paediatrics and that CML can be looked into only upto the cadre of Civil Surgeon, this Court held that, in such a case, promotion is determined not on the basis of CML ranking but on the seniority in the feeder category. Whereas, in the present case, 'Associate Professor' being a cadre below the top cadre i.e., Professor, the CML ranking cannot be simply brushed aside since the G.O. is very clear on the issue.

12. Coming to the case law of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Challa Jaya Bhaskar's case (cited supra), it was a case on a different issue relating to the methodology adopted by the Andhra Pradesh Government in determining the seniority between teaching and non-teaching posts which previously formed one cadre and the ratio laid down therein is, those belonging to the non-teaching line could not be appointed in the teaching line till they had acquired the PG Course. Moreover, in the said case law, no Government Order providing guidelines to govern the issue, was cited or challenged and considering the facts peculiar to the case, the Hon'ble Court made the observations relevant to that particular case. But, in the present case, the narrow issue that the persons, who have acquired speciality specific seniority, should be exclusively considered under such special ranking by completely ignoring the CML ranking assigned at the time of entry into the service, is something different from the one decided in the above said case law of the Supreme Court; thus, the learned Senior Counsel is not right in endeavouring to apply the ratio laid down therein to the present case which is wholly governed by G.O. Ms. No.349.

13. Moreover, clause (vi) of the Annexure to the letter, dated 31.01.2011, of the second respondent categorically states that all the Medical Officers with minimum of 5 years of teaching experience for MD/MS/MDS or 2 years as Assistant Professor (DM/MCh) in the concerned speciality should attend the counselling and based on vacancy in the concerned speciality, they should take up the vacant Associate Professor Post. It is further provided in clause (x) that the crucial date for calculating the teaching experience will be 15.03.2011. Thus, there may not be any grievance for the petitioners if they possess sufficient teaching experience.

14. To sum up, the core issue raised by the learned Senior Counsel to the effect that the petitioners having acquired speciality specific seniority, such aspect alone should be considered for the purpose of promotion to the higher post of Associate Professor irrespective of the CML ranking gained at the entry level, cannot be legally countenanced since such claim would run contra to the scheme of G.O. No.354. Secondly, the order passed in W.P. No.2775 of 2008 pertains to promotion to the highest post viz., Director and Superintendent equivalent to Professor cadre, for which, the CML ranking cannot be applied, whereas, in the present case, it has to be applied in terms of the G.O. Further, the relevant Government Order was not the subject matter of consideration in the said Writ Petition. Similarly, alike G.O. was not questioned before the Apex Court in Challa Jaya Bahaskar's case and the decision rendered therein is clearly distinguishable on facts as well as on Rules. Further, the apprehension of the petitioners that the norms and guidelines provided in G.O. No.354 may be reviewed, no longer exists in the light of the letter of the 2nd respondent, dated 31.01.2011, in particular clause (vi) and (x) thereof, as adverted to above in the course of this order.

15. For the foregoing reasons, Writ Petition Nos.26180, 26576, 26585 and 27056 of 2010 are dismissed as devoid of any merit. In view of dismissal of those Writ Petitions, there is no need to pass any order or issue direction in W.P. 27217 of 2010 and hence, the same is closed in the light of the observations made above. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.











JI.

To

1. The Secretary, Medical Council of India,
Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka Phase-I, New Delhi 110 077.

2. The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

3. Director of Medical Education,
Periyar EVR Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai-10.

4. The its Principal Secretary to the Government,
Finance Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009

DME Warns to Take Action Against Striking Doctors

From http://www.medindia.net/news/DME-Warns-to-Take-Action-Against-Striking-Doctors-80070-1.htm

http://www.cityjournal.in/Newspaper/20110128/Kerala/Kerala_1.html

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: As the indefinite strike by post graduate medical students in government medical college hospitals (MCHs) entered the third day yesterday Director of Medical Education (DME) day issued an ultimatum to them to report for duty within 24 hours. In her circular, DME Dr Geetha directed the principals of five MCHs to take action against the PG students if they failed to comply with the order.
The PG students, known as "PG Doctors" in local parlance and whose services are utilised in running OP and casualty wings of the MCHs, had gone on the strike to press their demands including the roll back of the increase in the annual fee from Rs.36,000 to Rs.46,000.
Meanwhile, Health Minister PK Sreemathy said stern action would be taken against the House Surgeons, many of whom stayed away from duty pledging solidarity with the PG Doctors yesterday.
"House surgency meant internship and the internees are not supposed to strike. Action would be taken against them if they continue to stay away" Sreemathi told reporters.
Meanwhile the functioning of five medical colleges in the state was affected yesterday on the strike.
Along with the PG students, house surgeons and senior resident doctors also joined the strike, which had worsened the situation.
Reports from various districts said the out-patients and emergency departments were the most affected as an impact of the strike. The functioning of these departments at the Thiruvananthpuram Medical College was affected. A report from Kottayam said that the strike had affected functioning of the Kottayam Medical College also.
A report from Kozhikode said functioning of Kozhikode Medical College, was badly affected. Sources said rush of patients was curtailed as the local health and community centres stopped referring cases to the premier medical institution. Sources, however, said doctors from other departments and teaching staff were manning departments such as casualty and OP.
Even though Kerala Health Minister PK Sreemathi had held talks with representatives of Kerala Medical Postgraduates Association (KMPGA), which had called for the strike, a solution could not be arrived at.
The KMPGA said the medicos would continue their strike as the minister could not give them any positive decision on any of the issues being raised by them. Other demands of PG doctors include better accommodation facilities at hospitals and enhancement of stipend.

The Implications of Speciality Seniority - Read Carefully

Serious promotion anomalies in new G.O-- panel senioroty in specialty would prevail over CML seniority. Rural service is ignored

கிராமப்புறத்தில் பணிபுரியும் மருத்துவர்களை பாதிக்கும் விதியை உடனடியாக ரத்து செய்ய வேண்டும்

இதுவரை அமலில் இருந்த விதிமுறை : ஒரு மருத்துவர் முதலில் அரசு பணியில் சேரும் போது கிராமப்புற ஆரம்ப சுகாதார நிலையத்தில் சேர்ந்தாலும், அல்லது அரசு மருத்துவமனையில் மருத்துவக்கல்லூரியில் சேர்ந்தாலும், ஒரே பணி மூப்பு - CML (Civil Medical List) based on TNPSC Seniorty - என்ற விதி இது வரை நடைமுறையில் உள்ளது.

அதாவது அவர்கள் கிராமப்புற மருத்துவமனைகளில் பணிபுரியும் காலகட்டம் அவர்களது பதவி உயர்விற்கு (TNPSC Seniorty) எடுத்துக்கொள்ளப்பட்டது

தற்சமயம் அரசாணை 354 நாள் 23.10.2009ன் படி இந்த விதி மாற்றப்பட்டுள்ளது (பார்க்க படங்கள் 25 - 26 Illustration 4)
எனவே மருத்துவர்கள் ஆரம்ப சுகாதார நிலையங்களில் பணிபுரியும் காலகட்டமும், அவர்கள் பணியில் சேரும் போது உள்ள CML சீனியாரிட்டிக்கும் மதிப்பிலை என்று ஆகிறது now the time spend by a medical officer in PHC is totally wasted

அவர்கள் மருத்துவக்கல்லூரியில் உதவிப்பேராசிரியராக பணியில் சேரும் நாள் மட்டுமே அவர் பேராசிரியராவதற்கு தகுதி என்றாகிறது

கிராமங்களில் 3 முதல் 4 வருடம் பணிபுரிந்து அதன் பிறகு பட்ட மேற்படிப்பு படிக்கும் மருத்துவரை விட கிராமப்புறங்களில் ஒரு நாள் கூட பணிபுரியாதவர் சீனியாரகும் அவல நிலையை இந்த ஆணை உருவாக்குகிறது

இந்த விதி உடனடியாக ரத்து செய்யப்பட வேண்டும்.

உதாரணமாக 2006 வரை கிராமப்புறங்களில் சேர்ந்தவர்கள் (ஒப்பந்த அடிப்படையில் சேர்ந்தவர்கள் உட்பட) இது வரை யாரும் படித்து முடிக்க வில்லை. இவர்கள் அனைவரும் படித்து முடித்து மருத்துவக்கல்லூரிகளில் சேர்வது 2013க்கு பிறகு தான்ஆனால் 2007 முதல் 2013 வரை படிக்கும் non service pg மருத்துவர்கள் இவர்களை விட சீனியாரும் வகையில் இந்த ஆணையில் விதி உள்ளது. இது கிராமப்புறங்களில் பணிபுரியும் மருத்துவர்களை பாதிக்கிறது.

இந்த புதிய விதியினால் இனி வரும் காலங்களில் கிராமப்புறங்களில் பணிபுரிய மருத்துவர்கள் விரும்பாமல் நேரடியாக மருத்துவக்கல்லூரியில் சேரவே விரும்புவார்கள்.

பல வருடங்களுக்கு முன்னர் இருந்தது போன்ற நிலை ஏற்பட வாய்ப்பு உள்ளது

எனவே இந்த புதிய விதியை உடனடியாக ரத்து செய்து, தகுதி இருப்பின், அனைத்து பதவி உயர்வுகளும், CML மூப்பு அடிப்படையிலேயே வழங்கப்பட்ட வேண்டும் என்றும் அனைத்து seniority panelகளும் CML சீனியாரிட்டியின் அடிப்படையிலேயே இருக்க வேண்டும் என்றும் மாற்றப்பட வேண்டும்

--

ILLUSTRATION 1

DOCTOR	A	B
DATE OF APPOINTMENT	1/4/2003	1/4/2009
QUALIFICATION ON APPOINTMENT	MBBS	M.D
COMPULSORY RURAL SERVICE DONE BEFORE DOING P.G	4 YEARS	NIL
DATE OF QUALIFIED P.G COURSE	1/4/2010	1/4/2009
TOTAL SERVICE AS ON 1/10/2010	7 YEARS	1 YEAR
PROMOTION TO SAP AS PER MCI	2015 TOTAL SERVICE 12 YEARS	2014 TOTAL SERVICE 5 YEARS
PROMOTION TO ASS-P AS PER MCI	2019 TOTAL SERVICE 16 YEARS	2018 TOTAL SERVICE 9 YEARS
PROMOTION TO PROF AS PER MCI PAY BAND 4	2021 TOTAL SERVICE 18 YEARS	2020 TOTAL SERVICE 11 YEARS

ILLUSTRATION 1

1. THE JUNIOR DOCTOR B WHO HAD NOT SERVED IN RURAL AREAS PHC/GH EVEN FOR A SINGLE DAY AND ALSO JUNIOR TO DOCTOR A BY 7 YEARS GETS ALL PROMOTIONS BEFORE DOCTOR A AND HE IS ALWAYS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERIOR.

2. DOCTOR B ENJOYS THIS PRIVELAGE BECAUSE HE WAS APPOINTED DIRECTLY TO DME SIDE WHILE THE SERVICE OF 7 YEARS PUT IN BY DOCTOR A IS NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL FOR PROMOTION AS DOCTOR A COMES TO DME SIDE LATER.

3. DOCTOR A PAYS THE PRICE FOR UNDERGOING COMPULSORY RURAL SERVICE BEFORE ENTERING P.G AND THUS HIS SERVICES ARE NOT COUNTED FOR PROMOTION.

4. DOCTOR A GETS PAY BAND 4 IN 18 TH YEAR OF SERVICE WHILE DOCTOR B THOUGH JUNIOR BY 7 TEARS GETS PAY BAND 4 AT 11TH YEAR OF SERVICE ITSELF

ILLUSTRATION II

DOCTOR	A	B
APPOINTMENT	1/1/2001	1/10/2008
QUALIFICATION ON APPOINTMENT	M.D	M.D
DEPARTMENT OF 1ST APPOINTMENT	PHC/GH	NO
TOTAL SERVICE IN NON DME SIDE RURAL AREA	8 YEARS UP TO 2009	NIL
DATE OF START OF SERVICE IN DME	2009 TOTAL SERVICE 8 YEARS	2008 TOTAL SERVICE NIL
SENIOR ASSIST PROFESSOR	2014 TOTAL SERVICE 13 YEARS	2013 TOTAL SERVICE 5 YEARS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR	2018 TOTAL SERVICE 17 YEARS	2017 TOTAL SERVICE 9 YEARS
PROFESSOR PAY BAND 4	2020 TOTAL SERVICE 19 YEARS	2019 TOTAL SERVICE 11 YEARS

ILLUSTRATION 2

1. DOCTOR A AND B ARE QUALIFIED M.D SPECIALISTS ON THEIR DATE OF APPOINTMENT ITSELF

2. DOCTOR A SERVED IN RURAL AREAS PHC/DMS FOR 7 YEARS BEFORE COMING TO DME SIDE

3. IN DME SIDE THOUGH DOCTOR B IS JUNIOR BY 7 YEARS TO DOCTOR A, HE IS PROMOTED BEFORE DOCTOR A AND IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERIOR FOR THE REST OF SERVICE. DOCTOR B ENJOYS THIS PRIVELAGE BECAUSE HE WAS APPOINTED DIRECTLY TO DME SIDE WHILE THE SERVICE OF 7 YEARS PUT IN BY DOCTOR A IS NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL FOR PROMOTION.

4. DOCTOR A GETS PAY BAND 4 IN 19 TH YEAR OF SERVICE WHILE DOCTOR B THOUGH JUNIOR BY 8 YEARS GETS PAY BAND 4 AT 11TH YEAR OF SERVICE ITSELF.

ILLUSTRATION III

DOCTOR	A	B
APPOINTMENT	1/1/2001	1/10/2008
QUALIFICATION ON APPOINTMENT	M.D	M.D
DEPARTMENT OF 1ST APPOINTMENT	DME	DME
TOTAL SERVICE IN DME SIDE NOT SAME SPECIALITY AS P.G. QUALIFICATION	8 YEARS UP TO 2009	NIL
DATE OF START OF SERVICE IN DME SAME SPECIALITY AS P.G QUALIFICATION	2009 TOTAL SERVICE 8 YEARS	2008 TOTAL SERVICE NIL
SR ASSIST PROFESSOR	2014 TOTAL SERVICE 13 YEARS	2013 TOTAL SERVICE 5 YEARS
ASS PROFESSOR	2018 TOTAL SERVICE 17 YEARS	2017 TOTAL SERVICE 9 YEARS
PROFESSOR PAY BAND 4	2020 TOTAL SERVICE 19 YEARS	2019 TOTAL SERVICE 11 YEARS

ILLUSTRATION 3

1. DOCTOR A AND B ARE QUALIFIED M.D SPECIALISTS ON THEIR DATE OF APPOINTMENT ITSELF IN DME SIDE.

2. DOCTOR A SERVED IN A DEPARTMENT OTHER THAN HIS SPECIALTY FOR 7 YEARS BEFORE COMING TO HIS SPECIALITY DEPARTMENT

3. IN SPECIALITY DEPARTMENT THOUGH DOCTOR A AND B HAVE SAME PERIOD OF TOTAL SERVICE, DOCTOR B IS PROMOTED BEFORE DOCTOR A AND IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERIOR FOR THE REST OF SERVICE. HE ENJOYS THIS PRIVELAGE BECAUSE HE WAS APPOINTED DIRECTLY IN HIS OWN SPECIALITY DEPARTMENT IN DME SIDE WHILE THE SERVICE OF 7 YEARS PUT IN BY DOCTOR A THOUGH EQUALLY QUALIFIED, BUT IN OTHER DEPARTMENT IS NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL FOR PROMOTION.

4. DOCTOR A GETS PAY BAND 4 IN 19 TH YEAR OF SERVICE WHILE DOCTOR B THOUGH JUNIOR BY 8 YEARS GETS PAY BAND 4 AT 11TH YEAR OF SERVICE ITSELF

ILLUSTRATION IV

ILLUSTRATION IV

DOCTOR	A	B
APPOINTMENT	1/10/1997	1/10/1997
QUALIFICATION ON APPOINTMENT	MBBS	MBBS
DEPARTMENT OF 1ST APPOINTMENT	DPH	DPH
P.G. QUALIFICATION ( after seving mandatory 2 yrs)	2003	2003
POSTING AFTER COMPLETING PG	PHC	DME
DATE OF START OF SERVICE IN DME SAME SPECIALITY AS P.G QUALIFICATION	2008	2003
SR ASSIST  PROFESSOR	2013	2008
ASS PROFESSOR	2017	2012
PROFESSOR PAY BAND 4	2019	2014

ILLUSTRATION 4

1.      DOCTOR A AND B ARE JOIN IN PHC WITH COMPULSORY RURAL SERVICE OF 2 YEARS BEFORE JOINING PG.

2.     BOTH JOIN PG IN THE SAME YEAR

3.     DOCTOR A IS POSTED IN A PHC AFTER PG WHEREAS DOCTOR-B IS POSTED IN DME SIDE IN THE CONCERNED DEPARTMENT.

4.      DOCTOR A JOINS DME SIDE 5 YEARS AFTER DOCTOR B

5. DOCTOR B GETS PAY BAND 4 FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO DOCTOR A, EVENTHOUGH BOTH THE DOCTORS HAVE JOINED SERVICE, COMPLETED POST-GRADUATION SIMULTANEOUSLY.

CET for Medical Admission WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 380 OF 2009

1

ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.3 SECTION X


S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 380 OF 2009


SIMRAN JAIN & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)


(With appln(s) for directions, impleadment/directions)
WITH W.P(C) NO. 238 of 2010
(With appln.(s) for directions and office report)
W.P(C) NO. 417 of 2009
(With appln.(s) for directions and office report)

Date: 13/08/2010 These Petitions were called on for hearing
today.


CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE



For Petitioner(s) Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv.

Mr. Rajesh Mahale,Adv.
Mr. Shivendra Dwivedi,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. P.P. Malhotra,ASG
Mr. Rashmi Malhotra,Adv.
Mr. Anand Verma,Adv.

Mr. Rishi Malhotra,Adv.
Mr. D.S. Mahra ,Adv

(For State of M.P.) Mr. Vikas Upadhyay,Adv.
Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv.
Mr. M.P. Singh,Adv.

Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.

(State of Chhattisgarh)Mr. Atul Jha,Adv.
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha ,Adv

(For respt. 9 & 10) Mr. Alok Sangwan,Adv.
2

Mr. Devashish Bharuka,Adv.

(For respt. 13 & 14) Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan,Adv.

Mr. S.N. Bhat,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

Learned Additional Solicitor General for
respondent-Union of India submits that the
Central Government has approved the proposal of
the MCI for amendment of the regulations
relating to courses of graduate and post
graduate students by providing a single
eligibilty-cum-entrance Examination and seeks
three weeks' time to notify it and place it on
record.


Finally, list after three weeks.




(O.P. Sharma) (M.S. Negi)
Court Master Court Master

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

“Information prior to 2005 cannot be denied”

From
http://www.hindu.com/2010/09/14/stories/2010091462360600.htm

Staff Reporter

MADURAI: The Madras High Court Bench here has rejected the argument that public authorities dealing with applications under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005 were not liable to provide details related to the period before the enactment of the legislation.

Dismissing a writ petition filed by a government-aided arts and science college in Tuticorin against an order passed by the State Information Commission, Justice R.S. Ramanathan said that the college could not refuse to part with details sought by an individual about its activities since 1999.

The judge disagreed with the petitioner's contention that compelling an authority to part with information prior to 2005 would amount to giving retrospective effect to the Act. He said that it was a substantial legislation which recognises the right of every person to obtain information.

“The purpose of enacting the legislation itself would become meaningless if the Court accepts the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no information or documents earlier to 2005 can be asked for by an RTI applicant… A citizen is entitled to call for information related to any period,” the judge said.

He also rejected the petitioner's other argument that the State Information Commission had violated the principles of natural justice by not giving an opportunity to the college explain its stand before directing the institution to provide information sought by the RTI applicant.

The Act does not require the Commission to issue notice before ordering disclosure of information.

“Further the question of violation of principles of natural justice would arise only when a person is affected by the passing of an order or any civil consequences followed by that order,” the judge added.

He also held that the petitioner college, being a government aided institution, was liable to provide the information as directed by the Information Commission.

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 189 OF 2010

N WP(C) o.189/2010
1

ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.3 SECTION X


S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 189 OF 2010


NAVAL ASIJA & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for stay)

Date: 13/05/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vikram Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv.
Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, Adv.


For Respondent(s)
UOI Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, SG
Mr. Aman Ahluwalia, Adv.
Mr. D.S Mahra, Adv.
Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Adv.

UT Chandigarh Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv.

State of Jharkhand Ms. Niranjana Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv.
Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv.

State of W.B. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.

For MCI Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Adv.
Ms. Prathiba M. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Mehra, Adv.
Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Adv.

State of Bihar Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.
WP(C) No.189/2010
2


State of Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.

State of U.P. Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Niranjana Singh, Adv.

Govt of Pondicherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.
Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv.
Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv.

State of T.N. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. V. Vasudevan, Adv

State of M.P. Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. B.S. Banthia, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned counsel for the MCI and counsel for some of the

States. We have also heard the learned Solicitor General

appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

We are informed that several States (as many as

14) have not completed the first round of counselling.

We are also informed the second round of counselling for

the All India quota, comes to an end today. After

hearing learned counsel and having examined the facts and

having considered the similar order passed during the

previous years, we issue the following interim directions

in regard to the schedule for extended second round of

Post Graduate Counselling 2010 for All India quota:
WP(C) No.189/2010
3


Date Detail
20.5.2010 Time-scheduled to be hosted on the website
by Directorate General of Health Services
27.5.2010 All States must report updated number of
vacancies resulting from non-joining,
resigning and surrendering of seats in 'All
India Quota' to the Directorate General of
Health Services by 5 PM
1.6.2010 Total number of vacancies to be notified by
Directorate General of Health Services
From 2.6.2010 Extended 2nd round of Counselling to be
to 12.6.2010 conducted by Directorate General of Health
Services at Delhi Counselling Venue only
20.6.2010 The last date for the students to join
allotted College.
21.6.2010 Vacant 'All India Quota' seats may be
deemed to be surrendered to the States
30.6.2010 Final deadline for the students to join
allotted course



We direct that the unfilled seats of All India

quota which would be deemed to have lapsed in favour of

the State Governments as at the end of the second

counselling today, will not so lapse in favour of the

State Government in view of the extended second round of

counselling. To ensure that the entire extended second

counselling is completed within the time schedule, the

extended second counselling for the All India quota shall

be held at Delhi. The State Governments shall adhere to

the above time schedule particularly to the second item

in regard to reporting of vacancies.
WP(C) No.189/2010
4
WP(C) No.189/2010
5

Liberty is reserved to the respondents 1 and 2 to

file an application for introduction of a single window

Scheme for the Post Graduate courses.

( Ravi P. Verma ) ( M.S. Negi )
Court Master Court Master

Attacking Docs Non-bailable Offense in Maharashtra

The Maharashtra assembly has passed the Maharashtra Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institution (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2010 on Friday.

Under the provisions of the act, any attack on doctors or medicare service personnel would result in a fine of Rs 50,000 and a three-year jail term. Minister of State for Law and Justice Bhaskar Jadhav tabled the bill, which states, "Any offender, who commits or attempts to commit or abets or incites the commission of any act of violence....shall be punished with imprisonment which may be extended to three years and with fine, which may extend to Rs.50,000."

It is a non-bailable offense and any attacker will have to pay twice the damages for any loss caused by the said attack.

The Indian Medical Association and several other doctors' associations had demanded such a law after attacks on doctors last year.


Source-Medindia
RAS

Medical sector reforms on the cards - Health Minister

http://www.indiaedunews.net/Medical/Medical_sector_reforms_on_the_cards_-_Health_Minister_10009/

December 25, 2009

Jammu: The Union Health Ministry has come up with a wave of changes for the Medical sector to encourage the participation of private players in the field.

The ministry, in order to cope up with the shortage of doctors in the rural areas has decided to create another cadre of medicos who will be assigned duties exclusively in the villages and rural areas.

Besides announcing the incentives, the ministry has also amended an Act of the Medical Council of India (MCI) to facilitate opening of medical colleges and institutes in the rural areas of the country.

The Union Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad, while addressing a function after laying the foundation stone of a hospital here recently announced that his ministry has decided to introduce a four-year course for doctors to create another cadre of medicos.

"The proposed new cadre would although be below the MBBS degree but it will be recognized by the Medical Council of India (MCI). It is a three-year academic course and a year's house job. The syllabus has already been drafted by the MCI and has been dispatched to different states for approval," he added.

The final decision now resides with the state governments who have to recognize the course.

Expecting a revolutionary change in the health sector, Azad said that, "It is mandatory for all doctors, trained in the four-year course, to serve only in the rural areas. Urban areas are not their field of work once they are a part of this programme."

He further added that apart from this new cadre, MBBS doctors would also be deployed in the rural areas.

To rope in private players in the health sector, Azad said that the pressure on the government institutes would ease due to the opening of private hospitals.

The Health Ministry had amended the existing Act of the MCI to simplify the procedure of opening medical colleges in the underdeveloped and backward areas

"Zones are allocated by the Health and Medical Education Ministry divided into three parts and special attention will be given to those areas which lack basic health facilities. Various concessions have been already announced by the ministry," he said.

With new concessions every year, 4000 specialist doctors and a similar number of super-specialist doctors would pass out from different medical colleges.

Azad further informed that his ministry had given sanction to open 19 medical institutes on a par with the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and 250 nursing colleges all over the country to cope up with the doctors and paramedical staff crunch.

"On an average, 20,000 candidates would pass out as qualified nurses every year from these colleges", he hoped.

Union Health Minister says steps are being taken to improve standard of medical education

http://pibmumbai.gov.in/scripts/detail.asp?releaseId=E2009PR1431

Delhi , December 11,2009 16:46 IST
Lok Sabha

To improve the quality of medical education, focus has been given to upgrading the skills of medical teachers, increase in post graduate courses/seats, revision of curriculum, introduction of new medical courses and revision of the norms of infrastructure etc. While these amendments have taken effect, the actual implementation is expected to commence from the next academic session. Some of the important amendments made in the MCI Regulations are as under:-

i) The ratio of post graduate medical teacher to the student has been relaxed from 1:1 to 1:2.

ii) Research publications in indexed/National Journals have been made compulsory for promotion to the post of Professor/Associate Professor.

iii) Permitted colleges which are not yet fully recognized are allowed to offer postgraduate courses in the subjects of preclinical and paraclincial Departments of Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Microbiology, forensic Medicine & Community Medicine without waiting for full recognition.

iv) The teaching experience required for the post of Professor/Associate Professor has been reduced by one year in the respective feeder cadres.

v) Emergency Medicine has been incorporated in the medical curriculum so that the medical students are trained to tackle medical emergencies.

vi) Basic management skills in the area of human resources, materials and resource management related to health care delivery, General and hospital management, principal inventory skills and counseling have been included in the curriculum.

vii) A village attachment of atleast one week to understand issues of community health alongwith exposure to village health centres, ASHA, Sub Centres have also been included in the curriculum.

viii) The requirement of infrastructure like institution block, library, auditorium, examination hall, lecture theatres, etc. has been rationalized for optimal use, and

ix) Laboratories in different departments have been pooled to have common laboratories which can be used by all the departments for better utilization of the equipment and space and to reduce capital expenditure,

2. In addition, to facilitate expansion of medical education to the unserved and underserved areas of the country, amendments have been made in the Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulations, some of which are as follows:-

(a) For opening of new medical colleges, land requirements have been rationalized across the country and they have been further liberalized in the case of notified tribal areas, underserved/unserved areas and hill areas. In respect of these areas, land need not be unitary piece but can be in two pieces of land,

(b) In respect of North-East and Hill States, the requirement of bed strength in the teaching hospital has been liberalized, and

(c) Staff and infrastructural requirements have also been rationalized etc.

3. The President of India in her address to the Joint Session of Parliament on 4th June, 2009, announced the Government’s intention to set up a National Council of Human Resources in Health (NCHRH) as an overarching regulatory body for health sector to reform the current framework and enhance supply of skilled personnel. Consequently, a Task Force under the Chairmanship of Union Secretary (Health & Family Welfare) was constituted to deliberate upon the issue of setting up of the proposed National Council. The Task Force submitted its report on 31st July, 2009. The report alongwith the draft bill for creation of NCHRH has been sent to the State Governments seeking their views and posted on the Ministry’s website for inviting comments from the general public. It is envisaged that the proposed National Council, when constituted, will deal with various needs of medical education in the country.

This information was given by Shri Ghulam Nabi Azad Minister Union Minister for Health & Family Welfare in a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha today.

Rural Health Regulatory Authority Bill 2009

The West Bengal government on Dec 2009 passed the controversial Rural Health Regulatory Authority Bill 2009 in the state assembly by majority vote.
In doing so, the state government created a precedence in the sense that it over-ruled thereby the collective decision that was taken by the Left Front to send the bill to the assembly select committee in view of the differences that existed over various tenets of the bill among the Opposition.
The government’s move resulted in an immediate walkout by the Trinamool Congress and Congress. The Bill introduces a 3-year diploma course on medical science and the apparent objective is to deploy these diploma holders in various parts of rural Bengal to meet the acute shortage there in terms of qualified medical practitioners.

The government’s move, good or bad, will undoubtedly lead to tremendous opposition from the leading Opposition parties as well as Left Front allies at this juncture when the state is going through one election after another and practically losing them all.

In early 1980s, the then CPIM state secretary Promode Dasgupta had mooted the idea of creating "barefoot doctors" to deploy them in rural Bengal, but had to relent to the huge opposition from the medical fraternity, including the Indian Medical Association (IMA).
At the same time, it is not unknown either that during the raj days, a category of medical practitioners was created who were known as Licentiate Medical Practitioners. Sometimes jokingly referred to as "half-doctors", these practitioners did not go through the rigours of the Bachelor of Medicine (MB) course, but could practice privately under certain conditions.
The system was abolished in 1946. "I don’t understand why Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee is trying to follow the Promode Dasgupta formula which was rejected by the medical fraternity as well," said Partha Chatterjee, the opposition leader in the state Assembly. Congress leader Manas Bhunia, who is himself an MBBS doctor resented the fact that two categories of medical practioners were being created, the fully-qualified for the cities and the half-qualified for rural Bengal.
"The sole intention of the government behind framing the bill is to tide over the manpower crisis in the rural health care system. MBBS doctors often refuse to go to the villages and stay there. We want to send these diploma-holder to villages to treat people there," state health minister Surjya Kanta Mishra argued. Mishra told newsmen he was unaware of the Front’s earlier decision, although he is a central committee member of the CPIM. Left partners were aghast.
Ashok Ghosh of the Forward Bloc, CPI’s Manju Majumdar and RSP’s Manoj Bhattacharjee all said they couldn’t figure out how this faux pas had happened. All of them were hugely surprised at the passing of the bill and said they would talk to the Left Front chairman Biman Bose. The CPIM’s state secretariat will take up the issue at a meeting on Thursday.

IMA doctors against Clinical Establishment Bill

Members of the Indian Medical Association (IMA) today voiced their opposition to the proposed Clinical Establishment Bill at the General House meeting held at IMA House in Ludhiana on Sunday. The Bill has been approved by the Union Cabinet and is to be presented in the Parliament for debate and approval. After detailed deliberations, the members rejected the Bill outright as it “violated the dignity of the profession”. IMA president Dr Narotam Diwan said: “The National Council, which is proposed to be the governing body, will be composed of quasi-literate persons drawn from Unani, Siddha, Nursing and Paramedical sections of the profession. Of the total 18 members of the National Council, only two will be medical graduates. If passed, this Bill will open the doors for every unqualified person to get registered in the guise of Yoga, Unani, Siddha, Nursing and Pharmacy branches.”

It’s official, Dr Cancer - Vaidya Ramesh Laxman Dhokte - is declared a quack

We have already covered this news at
http://www.doctorsandlaw.com/2005/10/fraud-ayurveda-doctor-to-be-arrested.html
http://www.doctorsandlaw.com/2005/06/quack-ayurveda-doctor-in-thane.html
Based on Indian Express From http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=32306

Dr.Dhokte has mailed us asking to remove the pages
His Mail

Hello,

This is in regard following webpage on your website.

http://www.doctorsandlaw.com/2005/10/fraud-ayurveda-doctor-to-be-arrested.html

This is wrong informtation and I herewith ask to remove this html webpage from your website.

Let me know if any issues in removal or you expect any help form my side and how soon you could do the necessary.

Regards

Our Reply

Dear Sir,

The information is based on http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=154386

From INDIAN EXPRESS, which is a reputed News Paper

Please inform us as to what part of the news is wrong

Regards

Bruno

His Next Mail

Hello,

we are talking to newpaper sources on further findings on sources of  this information.

The data findings and allegations are baseless.

Its upto you if you want to remove this html page or not. but this is a heads-up on legal consequences that may incur and since your website is under your proprietorship unlike newpapers, can have implications for reputation damage on internet.

Hence, this is my friendly request to remove the contents and let me know if you expect any assistance to do so.

please confirm your take on this, either way.

Thanks,

Ramesh Dhokte

His third Mail

your profile and website is impressive. thanks for sharing.

your intentions of doctorsandlaw.com may be right, but just feeding some news that appears to be somewhat relevant( to what that website intents to present), isn't in your interest for your propsperous career and reputation as a doctor,  unless you have solid proofs for the facts behind it before flooding such news around.

You would need to be investigator or a lawyer yourself to do so (my friendly advice).

you seem to have been lacking any news data that can be posted on your website to generate traffic.

News paper represents version of truth that they are presented and thus have many loopholes in the law can easily bend the facts for the taste of audience but yours is proprietory website and thus my advice is

Remove the contents or any link for that matter from your website related to these allegations for/on Vaidya Ramesh Dhokte.

Feel free to email only if you have taken the corrective action i.e. no contents, meaning neither in the format of a copy-paste from a news-paper article nor a link to the news itself.

Regards,

Mumbai, June 9, 2004 : Council scraps registration of Dombivli Ayurveda practitioner for duping cancer patients.

Ramesh Laxman Dhokte (65) of Dombivli, who has been duping cancer patients with the promise of a cure for more than 25 years, has lost his licence to practise medicine. The Maharashtra Council of Indian Medicine (MCIM) has permenantly withdrawn Dhokte’s licence to practise medicine.

Dhokte holds a diploma in Ayurveda. He had the requisite recognition to practice in Maharashtra

It was his unverified and dubious claim of curing cancer that was challenged by the MCIM in 1994.
The case against him gained momentum after Dhokte was booked for violating the Medical Practioners Act, 1961, and for duping cancer patients by the Economic Offences Wing of the Thane police on December 5, 2004.

Over the past quarter century, Dhokte sold his ‘‘miracle cure’’ to lakhs of unsuspecting cancer patients with the promise that his concoction would cure them of the dreaded disease.

By doing so, he raked it in. But Dhokte failed to get his medicine authenticated by an authorised research institution, despite reminders from the MCIM.

Dhokte claimed that he had stumbled upon a herb called ranvila in the forests of Mahableshwar.

According to him, the tribals had actually treated cancer with the herb.

Dhokte then proclaimed that the extract which he had prepared from the herb could cure all kinds of cancer.

Pune-based Botanical Survey of India had denied the very existence of the ranvila plant while replying to a query by one Dr Vilas Tannu in 1994.

The Thane police report on which the MCIM based its decision, revealed that Dhokte himself did not manufacture any medicine.

He bulk-purchased health tonics (like Radona from Solumix Herboceuticals) of well-known brands. After re-packaging, his ‘‘miracle cancer cure’’ was ready.

The police also found that Dhokte did not have a licence to sell medicine. Even the licence number on the label of his cancer cure product was fake.

Attempts to contact Dhokte failed. The staff at the dispensary told Newsline that he was away and ‘‘would be available’’ next week.

The Quack Effect

Dhokte, a diploma holder in Ayurveda from Dombivli, has been peddling his miracle cure since 1982. He has written numerous books, scripted a TV serial and a film on his miraculous cancer cure. Dhokte operated from a clinic at Dombivli (East) and charged Rs 2,000 for medicine and Rs 500 for consulting. His daily earnings amounted to Rs 40,000-Rs 50,000 on an average.