The agony of PG Medical students has
become a regular feature. It occurs every year during counselling.
The COVID19 pandemic has already delayed
the PG Medical counselling. And if that was not sufficient, the judiciary has
just virtually thrown it out of gear by staying the process.
Two independent WPs have been filed
before Bombay High Court by Dr. Rajdeep Deshmukh and Dr. Abhinav Bhute.
Dr Rajdeep Deshmukh, has sought
admission to a non-surgical PG course through the physically handicapped
category, as he is affected by a congenital deformity which has led to the
shortening of his index and middle fingers. Dr Deshmukh moved the HC after he
was declared ineligible for admissions to the course.
He contended that despite the deformity,
the functional capacity of his upper limbs is very strong and he can carry out
routine activities without difficulty. In other words, he does not have any
functional impairment of upper limbs in as much as there is only shortening of
the fingers and not the absence of limb or fingers.
Dr Rajdeep Deshmukh was admitted to
the MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery) course through the
physically-handicapped category, pursuant to the order passed by the HC.
The second petitioner, Dr Abhinav
Bhute, has challenged the government resolution (GR) issued by the Medical
Education Department sometime in 2019, granting only 4% additional weightage to
in-service candidates who have worked in rural areas, instead of the 10%
weightage given by the Medical Council of India (MCI).
The MCI had in April 2018 had issued a
notification granting 10% additional weightage per year of service, subject to
a cap of 30%, to candidates serving in tribal areas, difficult terrains, and
rural areas.
Dr. Abhinav Bhute has served in rural
areas for six years and accordingly, sought 30℅ additional weightage last year.
When the department refused to give him the 30% weightage, he moved the HC. The
court had on March 12, 2019, directed the State Government to extend additional
weightage as contemplated by MCI notification to in-service candidates who have
served in rural areas. Despite the HC’s direction, the department refused to
give the 30% weightage to Bhute, prompting him to approach the High Court for
redressal of his grievance.
Both these Petitions came up for
hearing before Justice S J Kathawala, who stayed the State Quota counselling
till 27th April, 2020. However, on April 27, 2020, Justice Ujjal
Bhuynan, before whom these two petitions came up for hearing, extended the stay
till 5th May, 2020.
Some important points would come to
the mind of any citizen of ordinary prudence:
1.
When
Dr. Rajdeep Deshmukh was admitted to MBBS degree course through handicapped
quota as per the High Court’s earlier order and when is handicap status has not
changed, what was the problem in considering him for counselling in
non-surgical seats?
2.
In
the case of Dr. Abhinav Bhute, Bombay High Court had already passed an order in
March 2019 for giving maximum 30% weightage to his 6 years rural service. Yet
the State Government did not give him the maximum weightage. This is a clear
case of contempt of court unless he State has filed appeal before the higher
authorities. However, that seems not to be the case.
3.
The
facts and the issues involved in either of these two cases concern oonly two
individuals and do not merit staying the entire State Quota counselling of PG
Medical seats. They are not touching larger issues like reservation, gimmicks
allegedly played while fixing 10% EWS reservations, reservation based on
religion, etc. etc. All such petitions touching the larger issues affecting a
large section of students are pending before Supreme Court for final hearing
and disposal.
4.
Since
State Quota counselling has been stayed, the AIQ counselling is stuck at the 1st
round.
5.
This
stay has also affected the functioning of hospitals. Third Year resident
doctors have proceeded on leave (except emergency) for their final exams
scheduled sometime in June/July 2020. The first year and second year resident
doctors have gone into second and third year respectively thus leaving the
entire first year resident doctors line vacant thereby increasing the work load
on the second year resident doctors to the crushing level. Already, the
hospitals are under staffed. There is tremendous strain on them even in normal
days. Add to this hard work is the corona cases. Team attending to Covid19
patients for six days is sent on compulsory isolation for 14 days, thereby
creating further shortage of doctors. Judiciary can hold proceedings via video
conference, whereas Doctors cannot teat their patients via video conference.
They are required to be on the field, exposing them not only to attacks from
relatives of patients and sundry politicians, but also exposing themselves to various
infections. They often work 72 hours without sleep and bath. Judiciary should
be aware of these facts before giving unqualified stay to the SQ counselling.
6.
Just
as Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 15737/2020 has not stayed the SQ counselling in
its order dated 22/04/2020, the Bombay High Court should have refused to issue
unqualified stay on SQ as it did on 24/04/2020. Like Supreme Court, the Bombay
High Court could have given interim relief, if any, by stating the admission
would be subject to the outcome of these two writ petitions.
I hope the Bombay High Court lifts the
stay on 5th May, 2020 and allow the PG Medical counselling to
progress smoothly so that 1st year Resident Doctors can report to
respective Hospitals at least by third week of May 2020.
