Doc­tors move court against MCI’s age cap on asst prof posts

Asks it to wake up from ‘Kum­bakar­nan sleep’ and fol­low the di­rec­tives

Sunday Express - - CHENNAI -

THE Madras High Court has slammed the Tamil Nadu gov­ern­ment for 17-year de­lay in fram­ing ad hoc rules af­ter it took a pol­icy de­ci­sion to ra­tio­nalise the ser­vice of lo­cal li­brary au­thor­i­ties and to bring them into one sin­gle unit.

A divi­sion bench of Jus­tices K K Sasid­ha­ran and R Subra­ma­nian said, “The de­ci­sion was taken by the gov­ern­ment as early as De­cem­ber 11, 1989. But the ad hoc rules were framed only in 2006, nearly af­ter a lapse of 17 years.”

This ex­hibits the cal­lous in­dif­fer­ence shown by of­fi­cials of the State. In 1995, the State Ad­min­is­tra­tive Tri­bunal had ob­served that the fram­ing of the rules should not be un­duly de­layed. It had specif­i­cally ob­served that ad­min­is­tra­tive de­ci­sions which in­volve change in ser­vice rules should be fol­lowed up by nec­es­sary changes by way of amend­ment with­out any un­duly de­lay, the bench pointed out.

The Madras high court ob­served that it is high time for the State to wake up from ‘Kum­bakar­nan sleep’ and fol­low court di­rec­tives with­out any fur­ther de­lay while pulling up the of­fi­cials of Tamil Nadu gov­ern­ment for their ‘cal­lous’ at­ti­tude in mak­ing ad­min­is­tra­tive de­ci­sions, lead­ing to long-drawn lit­i­ga­tions and waste of ju­di­cial time.

The judges made the ob­ser­va­tion on a batch of ap­peals chal­leng­ing a gov­ern­ment or­der is­sued by the school ed­u­ca­tion de­part­ment on Jan­uary 12, 2015 and a con­se­quen­tial or­der of the di­rec­tor of pub­lic li­braries dated Jan­uary 13, 2015 by which the pe­ti­tion­ers who were ap­pointed through di­rect re­cruit­ment were re­verted from the posts of dis­trict li­brary of­fi­cers. The ap­point­ments were made dur­ing 2002 to 2005.

Al­low­ing the ap­peals, the bench said, “Once it is found that the ap­pel­lants ap­point­ment was pur­suant to di­rect re­cruit­ment, they can­not be re­verted to a lower rank…”

“De­spite the di­rec­tion, the gov­ern­ment has taken 17 years for fram­ing rules, be­cause of which the ap­pel­lants had been run­ning from pil­lar to post right from 2007 to till date. We are pained at the at­ti­tude of the state ma­chin­ery in not even fram­ing the Ad­hoc Rules for 17 years. In our con­sid­ered opin­ion, this fail­ure on the part of the state to do its duty has led to this long-drawn lit­i­ga­tion re­sult­ing in waste of court hours on triv­ial is­sue of pro­mo­tions and se­nior­ity,” the court said. THE amend­ment to Med­i­cal In­sti­tu­tions Reg­u­la­tions, pre­scrib­ing 40-year as up­per age limit for ap­point­ment as se­nior res­i­dent/as­sis­tant pro­fes­sor in gov­ern­ment-run med­i­cal in­sti­tu­tions by Med­i­cal Coun­cil of In­dia, has been op­posed by a section of doc­tors who have moved the Madras High Court terming it “un­con­sti­tu­tional, ul­tra vires, dis­crim­i­na­tory and il­le­gal”.

The high court has or­dered no­tice to Med­i­cal Coun­cil of In­dia (MCI) on the pub­lic in­ter­est lit­i­ga­tion seek­ing in­terim in­junc­tion re­strain­ing Clause 6 of Sched­ule -I of amended Min­i­mum Qual­i­fi­ca­tion for Teach­ers in Med­i­cal In­sti­tu­tions Reg­u­la­tions, 1998 and de­clare re­stric­tion im­posed by MCI fix­ing 40-years as up­per age limit for ap­point­ment to the post of se­nior res­i­dent/as­sis­tant pro­fes­sor in gov­ern­ment run med­i­cal In­sti­tu­tions as il­le­gal.

A divi­sion bench of Jus­tices S Maniku­mar and Subra­man­ioum Prasad ad­journed the hear­ing to Septem­ber 19. Ac­cord­ing to pe­ti­tion­ers, MCI amended the Med­i­cal In­sti­tu­tions Reg­u­la­tions, 1998 with ef­fect from June 8, 2017 pre­scrib­ing 40-years as up­per age limit for ap­point­ment as se­nior res­i­dent in med­i­cal in­sti­tu­tions. “Any such pre­scrip­tion of age limit for a gov­ern­ment doc­tor in med­i­cal ser­vice for ap­point­ment to the post of se­nior res­i­dent in teach­ing med­i­cal in­sti­tu­tions would be against the ob­ject sought to be achieved un­der the pro­vi­sions of Indian Med­i­cal As­so­ci­a­tion Act and Min­i­mum Qual­i­fi­ca­tion for Teach­ers in Med­i­cal In­sti­tu­tions Reg­u­la­tions, 1998, pe­ti­tion­ers sub­mit­ted.

When post grad­u­a­tion is a nec­es­sary qual­i­fi­ca­tion for posts of se­nior Res­i­dent or As­sis­tant pro­fes­sor, any such re­stric­tion will lead to lack of req­ui­site num­ber of fac­ulty, the pe­ti­tion­ers said.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.