From http://m.newindianexpress.com/tamil-nadu/369689
MADURAI:
Pulling up the State Health Secretary and the Secretary of the Medical Selection Committee for not awarding marks to a young doctor for her rural service, thereby denying her an opportunity to pursue postgraduate specialisation course, the Madras High Court bench here imposed a fine of `1 lakh on each of them.
The doctor J Mercy Rumya Florence, an assistant surgeon, was temporarily appointed at a primary health centre in Thulukarapatti in Tirunelveli where she worked for two years and four months. Later, she appeared for an entrance exam in 2012-13, for pursuing postgraduate degree course and scored 63.36 marks. As per the prospectus she was eligible to be awarded one mark for each completed year of Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship (CRRI) in rural area. However, she was not given the marks on the grounds that it is awarded only for doctors who are in regular service. Justice S Nagamuthu said that due to the careless attitude of the respondents, the petitioner had lost her right to acquire a PG seat and she deserved to be compensated for it.
MADURAI:
Pulling up the State Health Secretary and the Secretary of the Medical Selection Committee for not awarding marks to a young doctor for her rural service, thereby denying her an opportunity to pursue postgraduate specialisation course, the Madras High Court bench here imposed a fine of `1 lakh on each of them.
The doctor J Mercy Rumya Florence, an assistant surgeon, was temporarily appointed at a primary health centre in Thulukarapatti in Tirunelveli where she worked for two years and four months. Later, she appeared for an entrance exam in 2012-13, for pursuing postgraduate degree course and scored 63.36 marks. As per the prospectus she was eligible to be awarded one mark for each completed year of Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship (CRRI) in rural area. However, she was not given the marks on the grounds that it is awarded only for doctors who are in regular service. Justice S Nagamuthu said that due to the careless attitude of the respondents, the petitioner had lost her right to acquire a PG seat and she deserved to be compensated for it.
This post first appeared on Medical, Legal, Medicolegal Information For Doctors And Lawyers, please read the originial post: here
