Solely med college students with 40% everlasting disability can search switch: HC | Nagpur Information
Nagpur: The Nagpur Bank of the Bombay Supreme Court upheld the rule set by the Directorate of Medical Education and Research (DMER) and declined a student’s request to make it clear that only those with a permanent disability of over 40% can join College transfers are allowed.
A division bank made up of Judges Sunil Shukre and Avinash Gharote recommended that MCI, now known as the National Medical Commission (NMC), establish specific guidelines for defining “real reasons” for physicians to apply for transfers to other universities .
The petitioner Manali Barde had requested her transfer from the Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) in Akola, where she is doing an MBBS course at GMCH Nagpur, because she suffers from allergic bronchitis with chronic bronchial asthma. She asked for relief in Section 13 (a) (ii) of the DMER brochure, which mentioned that students could only be transferred to other colleges if they met the criteria of 40% disability.
She initially applied to DMER, but was rejected on the grounds that she had not applied in the prescribed format. Since the transfer process for batch 2019-20 has already been completed, she cannot receive any relief.
After dismissing its plea, DMER challenged Clause 13 (a) (ii) on the grounds that it violated its earlier provisions.
The judges made it clear that the rules of DMER are based on Section 2 (Zc) of the Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of 2016 and are therefore protected by law.
“MCI regulations would show that it is only on ‘real ground’ subject to the availability of vacancies in college where migration is sought and if other regulatory requirements are met, migration could be allowed,” the HC said.
The judges explained the definition of “real reasons” as used by MCI, saying that if left unrestrained, uncontrolled and undefined it can lead to great abuse and abuse. “For what one person considers a real reason, it may not be the case in the eyes and perspective of another person. The reasons vary depending on the point of view of the person viewing the expression.”
They added that since the MCI regulations apply across the country, any state government / university / institution would be entitled to set guidelines for clearance or migration, subject to the terms of the regulations. “This would automatically lead to different guidelines set by different state governments / universities / institutions, which would lead to a lack of uniformity in migration policy.”
The judges advised MCI to define and establish the parameters or criteria of the term “real reasons” as appearing in its regulation in order to ensure uniform application across the country.
“Not only would this avoid contradicting meanings, but it would also save students from litigation and time to practice which could be beneficial to the pursuit of a profession for which they are preparing. We hope that MCI will take appropriate steps in this regard as soon as possible, ”said the bank.
What HC said
* The rules of DMER are based on Section 2 (Zc) of the Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
* MCI to set specific guidelines for defining “real reasons”
* MCI for defining and setting parameters or criteria for the expression “real reasons”
* If left unrestrained, uncontrolled, and undefined, it can lead to great abuse and abuse