Madura

‘Amendment is arbitrary and against principle of equality’

more-in

Madurai

A petition filed before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has challenged the Post Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations 2019 as illegal, since it has omitted MD (Paediatrics) as one of the eligible qualifications for pursuing D.M. in (Medical Oncology), a super speciality course.

The petitioner D. Satheesh Kumar said that he completed his MBBS degree in 2009 at the Madras Medical College and later his MD (Paediatrics) in 2014 at Kilpauk Medical College. He said that he was aspiring to join D.M. (Medical Oncology), a super speciality course and was continuously preparing for National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test - Super Speciality (NEET-SS) for super speciality courses.

He claimed that he had attended the NEET-SS examination conducted for the year 2018 and was shortlisted for DM (Medical Oncology) course at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai. Due to family circumstances, he said that he could not take up the course.

However to his shock, MD (Paediatrics) was omitted as a prior requirement for D.M. (Medical Oncology) for the year 2019, without any justification. All these years, MD (Paediatrics) was an allowed qualification to pursue D.M. (Medical Oncology). The amendment is totally arbitrary and against the principle of equality, the petitioner said.

AIIMS, New Delhi, and JIPMER, Puducherry, had issued prospectus for 2019 in which MD (Paediatrics) was shown as prior requirement for DM (Medical Oncology). However, the Medical Council of India has now issued this amendment.

He said that as a result of the amendment he would be deprived of appearing for this year’s examination and sought a direction to the Medical Council of India and the National Board of Examinations to allow him to appear for this year’s NEET-SS.

A Division Bench of Justices K. Ravichandrabaabu and Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for this year’s NEET-SS. The court further directed notice to the respondents. The case was adjourned for further hearing.

Next Story