HC rejects plea against 100% quota in PC-PNDT
2
Jaipur: A single judge bench of
Rajasthan High Court
rejected the petitions challenging complete reservation in PC-PNDT and related diploma programmes. The reservation applies exclusively to in-service doctors in Rajasthan or individuals who completed their MBBS from medical institutions within the state.
A single bench of Justice Sameer Jain gave this order while hearing the petition of Anoop Agarwal and others on May 21, with the order uploaded Tuesday.
"This is a policy decision of the govt, and it is also not against the provisions of the Constitution," the court said.
The petitioner said that on April 22, the NEET PG Counselling Board issued an advertisement and sought applications for conducting a six-month ultrasound training course under PC-PNDT.
"It was provided that in the first round, only doctors who have done MBBS from the state's medical colleges and in-service doctors will be included. If seats remain vacant after this, then in the second and subsequent rounds, those who have done MBBS from outside the state will be given a chance. We have challenged this and maintained that the National Medical Commission considers doctors who have done MBBS from anywhere in the country to be equal on the basis of merit," said Tanveer Ahamed, counsel for the petitioner.
In such a situation, the petitioner cannot be discriminated against on the basis of place for admission in this course.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
12 minutes ago
- Hans India
Cash row: CJI Gavai likely to recuse from hearing Justice Varma's plea, assures urgent hearing
The Supreme Court on Wednesday hinted that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai-led Bench will not likely take up for hearing the plea filed by Justice Yashwant Varma challenging his indictment by the three-member in-house committee in the cash-discovery episode. This unfolded when senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Justice Varma, urged CJI Gavai to constitute a Bench for urgent hearing of the matter. At this, CJI Gavai said, 'I think that it may not be proper for me to pick up that matter because I was part of the conversation'. However, the CJI assured Sibal that a Bench will be constituted to hear the plea filed by Justice Varma. 'We will just take a call and constitute a Bench,' said CJI Gavai. The writ petition filed by Justice Varma sought to quash the communication forwarded by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna to the President and then Prime Minister to take action against Justice Varma. As per the petition, the in-house panel acted in a 'pre-determined manner' and denied Justice Varma a fair opportunity to defend himself. On Monday, 145 MPs from both the ruling and Opposition parties submitted an impeachment notice against Justice Varma to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla. Justice Varma has been in the eye of a storm since the March 14 discovery of the burnt cash in an outhouse of his official residence allotted to him while serving in the Delhi High Court. Following the cash-discovery row, which sent shockwaves across the judicial corridors, Justice Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, and an in-house probe was set up to probe the allegations. According to the probe committee, both direct and electronic evidence confirmed that the storeroom was under the covert or active control of Justice Varma and his family. By way of strong inferential evidence, the in-house panel said the burnt cash was removed from the storeroom during the early hours of March 15. In conclusion, the three-member inquiry committee, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, CJ G.S. Sandhawalia of the Himachal Pradesh HC and Karnataka HC's Justice Anu Sivaraman, found the allegations serious enough to merit impeachment proceedings against Justice Varma. It opined that Justice Varma's misconduct was not only proven but also grave enough to warrant his removal under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
New Indian Express
12 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Dhankhar made 'unscheduled visit' to Rashtrapati Bhavan before announcing resignation
Before his surprise resignation, former vice president Jagdeep Dhankhar made an "unscheduled visit" to the Rashtrapati Bhavan late on Monday evening, official sources said. Dhankhar met President Murmu around 9 pm on Monday and handed over his resignation to her. Half an hour later, he made his resignation letter public on X, they said. "To prioritise health care and abide by medical advice, I hereby resign as Vice President of India, effective immediately, in accordance with Article 67(a) of the Constitution," Dhankhar said in his letter. Dhankhar, 74, assumed office in August 2022 and his term would have ended in August 2027. The resignation of Dhankhar, who was also the ex officio chairman of the Rajya Sabha, came on the first day of the Monsoon session of Parliament. Prime Minister Narendra Modi posted on X, saying, "Jagdeep Dhankhar has got many opportunities to serve our country in various capacities, including as the Vice President of India. Wishing him good health." Meanwhile, the Congress sought an explanation from the government after Dhankhar resigned unexpectedly, citing health reasons. Congress general secretary in-charge of communications Jairam Ramesh said there were 'far deeper reasons' behind the move, while the party's deputy leader in the Lok Sabha, Gaurav Gogoi, asked the Centre to clarify if it had prior knowledge of the resignation. Several other Opposition leaders also expressed surprise and scepticism over the abrupt move, with some suggesting there may be more to the decision than meets the eye.
The Hindu
42 minutes ago
- The Hindu
CJI agrees to constitute Bench to hear plea on behalf of Justice Varma
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Wednesday (July 23, 2025) said he will constitute a Bench for hearing a petition filed on behalf of Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the in-house inquiry procedure and the then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation to the President and Prime Minister, in the month of May, to remove the judge from office. The Chief Justice said he, however, would not be part of the Bench. 'I will have to constitute a Bench on this. I think it will not be proper for me to take up the matter because I was part of the consultations then,' Chief Justice Gavai addressed senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who made an oral mentioning for an early hearing of the petition. 'That is for you to decide,' Mr. Sibal replied. 'We will just take a call and constitute a Bench,' Chief Justice Gavai said. Mr. Sibal said the petition has raised several constitutional issues with respect to the recommendation made by Chief Justice Khanna (now retired) for the removal of Justice Varma. The Chief Justice's willingness to judicially examine the question of removal of Justice Varma comes a couple of days after a removal motion was initiated when Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha members submitted notices to the presiding officers of their respective Houses. The petition in the Supreme Court argued that the in-house inquiry process was a 'parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism' designed for the judiciary to usurp the Parliament's exclusive authority. An in-house inquiry committee of three judges had confirmed that unaccounted cash was found in the gutted storeroom at the official residential premises of Justice Varma after a blaze on March 14-15. Chief Justice Khanna had forwarded the report to the Prime Minister and President in May after Justice Varma refused to resign. The challenge in the apex court contended that the in-house inquiry took away the exclusive powers of the Parliament under Article 124 and 218 of the Constitution to remove judges through an address supported by a special majority after an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 'This Act provides a comprehensive, legislatively sanctioned process with stringent safeguards, including formal charges, cross-examination, and proof beyond reasonable doubt for 'proved misbehaviour'. On the other hand, the in-house procedure, which adopts no such comparable safeguards, usurps parliamentary authority,' the petition said. The petition, filed under an anonymous acronym 'XXX', described the petitioner as an Allahabad High Court judge. The in-house procedure, devised by the Supreme Court, had no legal sanction. It was a threat to the separation of powers, the petition argued. Justice Varma urged the apex court to declare the in-house procedure unconstitutional. The petition argued the in-house inquiry procedure against sitting judges was also a threat to judicial independence, an essential part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. 'It overreaches constitutional limits by enabling punitive outcomes without legislative sanction, concentrating excessive power without standards or safeguards, and thus erodes judicial independence and public confidence,' it submitted. It also made a direct attack on Chief Justice Khanna, saying the latter did not give Justice Varma a personal hearing after the committee report came out nor had afforded him a chance to properly review the document. The petition pointed out that the inquiry reached its conclusions merely on the basis of presumptions. There was not even a formal complaint about the 'discovery' of cash. Neither was the alleged cash seized or panchnama prepared. The whole series of events were based on certain photos and videos privately taken by some officials. It said the inquiry committee was unfair to the High Court and did not find the answers it was constituted for, including when, how and by whom was the cash placed in the outhouse.
