The Madras High Court on Wednesday wondered how fair it was for the Directorate of Medical Education (DME) to insist upon sureties from two government employees along with bonds for ₹40 lakh and ₹20 lakh to be executed by MBBS graduates for securing admission in postgraduate (PG) degree and diploma courses respectively under government quota.
A Division Bench of Justices S. Vaidyanathan and Subramonium Prasad questioned how poor students will obtain such sureties from government employees and directed a government counsel to obtain instructions on the issue from the DME as well as the Health Secretary before the next summer vacation court sitting scheduled on May 15.
The query was raised during the hearing of a public interest litigation petition filed by advocate T.K. Saravanan, 33, of Chennai, accusing some government employees of demanding huge amount of money from candidates to provide sureties while a majority of them decline such requests due to fear of facing the music if the candidates do not comply with bond conditions.
The petitioner said the government had made it mandatory for MBBS graduates to execute bonds stating that they shall serve the government for two years after completing the PG diplomas/degrees if their services were required.
Such a stipulation had been created to ensure that specialist doctors did not shy away from serving in rural areas despite being educated at State cost.
As per the prospectus for PG medical admissions for the academic year 2019-20, the successful candidates, who had cleared NEET, were required to submit bonds along with three sureties of which one must be from spouse or parent and two others from government employees in the same or higher rank that of the candidate.
Stating that he had no issues with insistence on execution of bonds and obtaining sureties from family members, the petitioner said the demand for surety from two permanent government employees was a harsh and severe condition that could prevent the economically and socially disadvantaged students from pursuing higher education.
“Students who do not have easy access to government officials cannot dream of getting such sureties. Such condition casts an unnecessary burden on the parents and students... It is exfacie arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and illegal,” the petitioner said and urged the court to set aside the relevant clauses from the prospectus.