LUCKNOW: The Lucknow bench of the high court has said there is no error in decision of the state government to hold centralised counselling for MBBS and BDS courses in 2016-17 session on the basis of NEET conducted by the Medical Council of India.
The court, however, disagreed to the state's policy directing private unaided medical colleges to admit local financially weak students on 50% subsidised seats, leaving 50% non-subsidised seats to be filled on the basis of NEET merit list and those taking admission on these non-subsidised seats would pay double fees to compensate for subsidised seats to be occupied by financially weak students. The court asked the state government to reformulate and conduct the ongoing medical counselling afresh. It also said the state would conduct counselling for minorities institutions to fill up the seats as per the rules.
A bench of justice A P Sahi and justice Rajan Rai passed the order partly allowing the writ petition filed by UP Unaided Medical Colleges Welfare Association and about a dozen other petitions.
The court, however, disagreed to the state's policy directing private unaided medical colleges to admit local financially weak students on 50% subsidised seats, leaving 50% non-subsidised seats to be filled on the basis of NEET merit list and those taking admission on these non-subsidised seats would pay double fees to compensate for subsidised seats to be occupied by financially weak students. The court asked the state government to reformulate and conduct the ongoing medical counselling afresh. It also said the state would conduct counselling for minorities institutions to fill up the seats as per the rules.
A bench of justice A P Sahi and justice Rajan Rai passed the order partly allowing the writ petition filed by UP Unaided Medical Colleges Welfare Association and about a dozen other petitions.
The private medical institutes had challenged the state government's September 2, 2016 order whereby it had prescribed guidelines for allotment of seats on the basis of NEET list.
The petitioners had pleaded that the state had not defined the category of poor and if the policy was implemented, students with less merit would occupy subsidised seats while merit holders would be left to make do with non-subsidised seats. This would disenchant the medical students to choose Uttar Pradesh as their destination for study medical and thus it would incur heavy losses to the private medical colleges. It was contended that the subsidised seats are meant for aspirants residing within UP, thus, this would lead disparity among the aspirants. Some minorities institutes had raised the issue that state cannot hold counselling for admission in these institutes.
The petitioners had pleaded that the state had not defined the category of poor and if the policy was implemented, students with less merit would occupy subsidised seats while merit holders would be left to make do with non-subsidised seats. This would disenchant the medical students to choose Uttar Pradesh as their destination for study medical and thus it would incur heavy losses to the private medical colleges. It was contended that the subsidised seats are meant for aspirants residing within UP, thus, this would lead disparity among the aspirants. Some minorities institutes had raised the issue that state cannot hold counselling for admission in these institutes.
கருத்துகள் இல்லை:
கருத்துரையிடுக