Jaipur: Granting major respite to Pacific Medical College And Hospital, the Rajasthan High Court has ordered the Medical Council of India (MCI) to allot the 96 PG medical seats to the institute for which it had made an application.The medical college had moved the HC seeking relief from the rejection made by the MCI on the allotment of the number of seats asked by the institute for this PG medical academic session.The bench had noted during the hearing, MCI had failed to maintain its stance for its decision in disallowing the seats and hence it granted relief to the medical college.The case pertains to the demand submitted by the Pacific Medical College to the apex medical regulator for 116 PG Medical seats in 12 departments last year-- MS General Surgery, MD Radio Diagnosis, MD in Pediatrics, MD in General Medicine, MS Orthopedics, MS in Obstetrics & Gynecology, MD in Anesthesiology, MS in Otorhinolaryngology, MD in Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy, MS Ophthalmology, MD in Psychiatry and MD. in Respiratory Medicine.However, after inspection, the MCI allowed only 47 seats to the institute. Being aggrieved with the action of the medical council for sanctioning the less number of seats for the various postgraduate courses, the medical college submitted a representation before the MCI this February and prayed for an increase in the intake capacity.Seeking timely relief, the college moved the Supreme Court to intervene in the matter. After hearing the case, the apex bench directed the MCI to consider the representation made by the medical college. But the MCI once again rejected the prayer of the medical college of increasing in the intake capacity of various postgraduate courses and reiterated its decision of allowing the institute to admit specific number of students as ordered earlier.The petition was then withdrawn from the SC and the medical college decided to take the matter to the Rajasthan High Court.During the recent hearing on the case before the HC, the medical college submitted that the MCI's decision in rejecting the prayer for increase in the intake capacity of various 12 postgraduate courses is absolutely illegal. It was submitted that the MCI rejected the representations of the petitioners on one of the grounds that some of the faculties engaged by it are of 67 to 70 years of age and, therefore, those faculties cannot be counted amongst the total teachers available in the department because they will become overage by the time the students have completed their post graduate courses. It was argued that the said ground taken by the medical council is not tenable in the eye of the law because as per Minimum Qualification for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 the maximum age limit up to which a person can be appointed or granted reemployment in service against the posts of Teachers or Dean or Principal or Director, as the case may be, is 70 years. In the case of the petitioners, none of the faculties was above 70 years at the time of submitting applications. The counsel appearing on behalf of the medical college then averred that if some of the faculty members have completed 70 years of age by this time then new faculties will be engaged by the time the courses are started. It was further argued that when the maximum age for appointing a faculty is prescribed under the law is 70 years, the MCI was not correct in claiming that a faculty between 67 and 70 years of age cannot be counted against the strength of teachers engaged by any college for imparting education in post graduate courses.The counsel then stated that the other grounds, on the basis of which the representations of the petitioner-college praying for increasing the seats allotted to it in various postgraduate courses have been rejected, are that some of the faculties are not working from a quite long time with the college or because of their prior appointment elsewhere. In some of the cases, the faculties have been non-suited because they have worked for various institutions in last few years. It was argued that the above-referred grounds are not available to the MCI for rejection of the representations of the petitioners because the rules do not provide a specific period for which the faculty is required to be engaged in a college and it is also not provided that if a faculty is engaged in different institutions prior to its engagement with the applicant college then the said faculty is disqualified to teach in the post-graduation courses.It was further submitted that after the medical college applied for starting postgraduate courses pursuant to the Annexure-1 the accessors/inspectors of MCI had conducted various inspections of the institute and submitted their reports and in the said reports no deficiency/lacunae has been reported regarding the availability of infrastructure or other requirements. They argued that the MCI has failed to point out any lacunae/deficiency regarding the availability of infrastructure...
Jaipur: Granting major respite to Pacific Medical College And Hospital, the Rajasthan High Court has ordered the Medical Council of India (MCI) to allot the 96 PG medical seats to the institute for which it had made an application.The medical college had moved the HC seeking relief from the rejection made by the MCI on the allotment of the number of seats asked by the institute for this PG medical academic session.The bench had noted during the hearing, MCI had failed to maintain its stance for its decision in disallowing the seats and hence it granted relief to the medical college.The case pertains to the demand submitted by the Pacific Medical College to the apex medical regulator for 116 PG Medical seats in 12 departments last year-- MS General Surgery, MD Radio Diagnosis, MD in Pediatrics, MD in General Medicine, MS Orthopedics, MS in Obstetrics & Gynecology, MD in Anesthesiology, MS in Otorhinolaryngology, MD in Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy, MS Ophthalmology, MD in Psychiatry and MD. in Respiratory Medicine.However, after inspection, the MCI allowed only 47 seats to the institute. Being aggrieved with the action of the medical council for sanctioning the less number of seats for the various postgraduate courses, the medical college submitted a representation before the MCI this February and prayed for an increase in the intake capacity.Seeking timely relief, the college moved the Supreme Court to intervene in the matter. After hearing the case, the apex bench directed the MCI to consider the representation made by the medical college. But the MCI once again rejected the prayer of the medical college of increasing in the intake capacity of various postgraduate courses and reiterated its decision of allowing the institute to admit specific number of students as ordered earlier.The petition was then withdrawn from the SC and the medical college decided to take the matter to the Rajasthan High Court.During the recent hearing on the case before the HC, the medical college submitted that the MCI's decision in rejecting the prayer for increase in the intake capacity of various 12 postgraduate courses is absolutely illegal. It was submitted that the MCI rejected the representations of the petitioners on one of the grounds that some of the faculties engaged by it are of 67 to 70 years of age and, therefore, those faculties cannot be counted amongst the total teachers available in the department because they will become overage by the time the students have completed their post graduate courses. It was argued that the said ground taken by the medical council is not tenable in the eye of the law because as per Minimum Qualification for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 the maximum age limit up to which a person can be appointed or granted reemployment in service against the posts of Teachers or Dean or Principal or Director, as the case may be, is 70 years. In the case of the petitioners, none of the faculties was above 70 years at the time of submitting applications. The counsel appearing on behalf of the medical college then averred that if some of the faculty members have completed 70 years of age by this time then new faculties will be engaged by the time the courses are started. It was further argued that when the maximum age for appointing a faculty is prescribed under the law is 70 years, the MCI was not correct in claiming that a faculty between 67 and 70 years of age cannot be counted against the strength of teachers engaged by any college for imparting education in post graduate courses.The counsel then stated that the other grounds, on the basis of which the representations of the petitioner-college praying for increasing the seats allotted to it in various postgraduate courses have been rejected, are that some of the faculties are not working from a quite long time with the college or because of their prior appointment elsewhere. In some of the cases, the faculties have been non-suited because they have worked for various institutions in last few years. It was argued that the above-referred grounds are not available to the MCI for rejection of the representations of the petitioners because the rules do not provide a specific period for which the faculty is required to be engaged in a college and it is also not provided that if a faculty is engaged in different institutions prior to its engagement with the applicant college then the said faculty is disqualified to teach in the post-graduation courses.It was further submitted that after the medical college applied for starting postgraduate courses pursuant to the Annexure-1 the accessors/inspectors of MCI had conducted various inspections of the institute and submitted their reports and in the said reports no deficiency/lacunae has been reported regarding the availability of infrastructure or other requirements. They argued that the MCI has failed to point out any lacunae/deficiency regarding the availability of infrastructure...
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df
a sdkljfaklsjd klfjasdjf kajsdkjfk ajsdkjakjs df