Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The bench of Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ directed the State of Gujarat to give 50 per cent reservation to the in-service candidates for admission to post-graduate medical diploma courses as per the regulations of the Medical Council of India. The reservation is to be granted in the second round of counselling, starting tomorrow for admissions in PG courses. The Court also asked the State Government to define remote rural or difficult areas in which the in-service medical officers will be working.

The in-service medical candidates had challenged the State’s order of granting only 25 per cent reservation to the in-service candidates for admission in PG medical diploma courses. The candidates had pleaded that as per regulation VII of the MCI Regulations, 2000, it is mandatory for the state to reserve 50 per cent of the total seats of government medical college in Post Graduate Diploma Courses for medical officers in the government service, who has served at least 3 years in remote and/or difficult areas.

The Gujarat High Court had, on 05.05.2017, dismissed the petition of in-service medical petitioners on the ground that it was not mandatory for the State Government to follow the rules and regulations issued by the Medical Council of India, particularly the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000.

Source: PTI

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the issue pertaining to the admission of students in MBBS/BDS courses in the State of Maharashtra, the Court, exercising of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, vacated the Bombay High Court’s order where the decision taken by the Central Government/State Government that the centralised counselling shall be conducted by the State Government, was stayed. However, it was clarified that the vacation of the stay will not disturb the admissions already made by the respondent universities keeping in view that respondents are deemed universities.

Taking into note the fact that the first counselling had already been completed, the bench of Dr. A.K. Sikri and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ said that insofar as second or third counselling is concerned, that shall be a joint exercise which means that it shall be done by the Committee of the State Government which shall include one representative each from these universities. It would be a centralised counselling for all the deemed universities and not university-wise counselling. In the second or third counselling, students will be taken by making a combined list of those who got themselves registered with the State Government as well as the respondent universities. This shall ensure admission of those who are more meritorious but left out but are interested in taking admission in the respondent universities. In this process, it will also be known as to which students are in fact interested in getting admission to the respondent universities.

It was further held that In order to undertake the counselling, all the admission records of the respondent universities shall be handed over to the State Government/Committee forthwith. Considering the fact that it may not be possible to complete the process of admission by September 30, 2016, the Court extended the time to complete the admission by October 7, 2016.

The decision of centralized counselling was taken vide Letter dated August 09, 2016 issued by the Government of India through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Government Resolution dated August 20, 2016 passed by the State of Maharashtra and the consequential Notice dated August 21, 2016 of the State of Maharashtra. [State of Maharashtra v. D.Y. Patil Education Society, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9835 OF 2016, decided on 28.09.2016]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In order to make the admission process to the Medical Institutions a composite process, the Court directed that admission to all medical seats shall be conducted by centralised counselling only by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh and none else. The 5-judge bench of Anir R. Dave, Dr. A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal, A.K. Goel and R. Banumathi, JJ said that if any counselling has been done by any College or University and any admission to any medical seat has been given so far, such admission shall stand cancelled forthwith and admission shall be given only as per centralised counselling done by the State Government.

The Additional Solicitor General had submitted that the State Government is ready to undertake the entire process afresh and assures that it would be completed by 30th September, 2016 which is the last date for admission. The Court, hence, said that it is a proper course of action inasmuch as it will enable the private institutions to send their representatives at the place of counselling as per the information which may be displayed by the counselling authority forthwith at its website. The Additional Solicitor General had assured the Court that all seats, whether of Government Colleges or the private institutions, shall be filled up and no seat shall remain vacant. [State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jainarayan Chouksey, 2016 SCC Online SC 974,  decided on 22.09.2016]

High Courts

Bombay High Court: Setting aside a State Government circular that prohibited counselling and mediation in domestic violence cases without a court order, a bench comprising of Mohit Shah, CJ and RS Dalvi, J. laid down guidelines on how pre-litigation counselling may be conducted by any registered service provider, including NGOs, counsellors and police officers.

The Court was hearing a PIL filed on the basis of a letter written by Dr. Jaya Sagade, a service provider under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) and a Professor of Law at ILS Law College, Pune. It was contended that the role of the agencies providing counselling and mediation would merely be reduced to “referral” agencies, in case their role was merely restricted to merely informing the aggrieved woman of her rights and that their experience and expertise in the field would be whittled down to clerical work which cannot be termed as “counseling”.

Dismissing the State’s contention that the function of service providers are limited to the services enumerated in Section 10 of the DV Act, the Court observed that such an interpretation would be to read a socially beneficent legislation without regard to the objective it seeks to serve and the strides it seeks to make for domestic peace and harmony in the country, and thereby declared the circular to be discriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonable. The Court further stated that a victim must be informed about her right to choose her course of action and be guided about her legal rights under the Act and there shall be no pressure  upon her to settle her claim or grievance. Dr. Jaya Sagade vs. State of Maharashtra, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 4777, decided on September 4, 2015