Letter to Secretary Selection Committee requesting to abide by rules

From

“Affected” “Genuine” “Law Abiding” Candidates

To

Secretary Selection Committee

TNPG Admissions 2007-2008

GoTN

Respected Madam,

Sub: Adherence to Rules – To Avoid Changing Rules midway – request submitted regarding

Reference:

1. Prospectus Page 7, Para 23 a to i

2. Announcement made by the Secretary Selection Committee on the Forenoon of 3^rd April 2007 during the counseling session after receiving the information about Sanctioning of new seats

3. Notification Issued by Selection Committee regarding the second phase of counseling.

4. Judgement Given in the WP.No 15830 of 2003 by the THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE Mr.N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29/09/2003

5. Judgement Given in the WP (Civil) No 29 of 2003 by Supreme Court of India

6. Orders given by Supreme Court in WP (Civil) No 157/2005

It has come to our attention that the Selection Committee is illegally, unethically, immorally planning to amend the rules (pertaining to selection of candidates and allotment of Post Graduate Medical Seats in the Tamil Nadu Medical Colleges) to favour few candidates midway during the process of counselling.

The rules as published in the Prospectus are as follows

Page 7, Para Number 23 (a-i):

· (a) Admission to PG or Diploma or 5 year MCH Neuro Courses shall be made by counseling on the basis of merit applying the rule of reservation wherever applicable

· (b) Candidates will be called for counseling according to their ranks in batches

· (c) Candidates can choose any one of the disciplines in colleges available at the time of counseling

· (d) IF a candidate wants to be waitlisted, he or she is automatically waitlisted in the General Waitlist of all courses. Arising Vacancies will be filled up based on the Merit and Communal Reservation wherever applicable

· (e) Candidates can remain on the waitlist only for COURSES and NOT for COLLEGES

· (f) If a candidate chooses to be only in the general waiting list, he or she will NOT BE GIVEN A FIRM SEAT in any of degree or diploma course

· (g) If a candidate gets an allotment in the diploma course of a particular specialty at the time of counseling, he or she will be waitlisted for the degree course in the same specialty only AND NOT IN ANY OTHER SPECIALITY and arising vacancies in that specialty will be filled up taking into account the candidates kept under general waiting list

· (h) A candidate who is allotted a firm seat in a degree course cannot remain in the General Waiting List

· (i) Option once given
during the counseling cannot be changed later

On the forenoon session of 3^rd April, the Secretary Selection Committee made the following announcements

1. The new seats which are sanctioned will be shown only during the second phase of counseling and will not be shown during the first phase
2. The candidates who have taken a seat in a PRIVATE College will be included in the waiting list for the SAME Course in the General Waiting List

The notification issued by the Authorities which listed the instruction to candidates appearing for Re-Allotment and Waitlist Movement and which was made public clearly says the following

Re-allotment – Method of Allotment : The selected Candidates will be allowed to exercise their option to move from allotted college to any other college where seats of the same specialty are available.

So the rules are very clear

1. Those who have taken a Master Seat in a Government College in the first round can opt for change of college only

2. Those who have taken a Master Degree seat in a Private College can opt for the same seat, IF AVAILABLE at his rank and communal rotation in a Government College

3. Those who have taken a diploma can opt for the Master Degree seat from the same discipline, IF AVAILABLE at his rank and communal rotation in a Government College in a Re-allotment – Method of Allotment.

4. Candidates who HAD NOT TAKEN ANY SEAT, based on the instructions and the regulations given in the Prospectus and subsequently announces by the authorities and those WHO HAD COMPLIED WITH THE REGULATIONS OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE can take the seats available at his rank and communal rotation

We would like to bring to your kind attention that the waitlist candidates are allotted seats based on the vacancies that arise after the first phase of counseling. We would like to reiterate that the rules specify the term “Vacancy” which includes

1. Seats falling vacant as a student who has opted in the first phase has not joined

2. Seats “surrendered” from the All India Quota of Seats AFTER THE FIRST PHASE OF COUNSELLING

3. Seats have been sanctioned AFTER THE FIRST PHASE OF COUNSELLING

As per the prospectus and the official notifications, the VACANT SEATS are to be filled as per the existing norms and ANY CHANGE IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS with a nepotistic intention to facilitate backdoor entry and favor selected candidates are to be strictly avoided

While it is given clearly in black and white that OPTION ONCE EXERCISED CANNOT BE CHANGED, it is painful to learn that the Selection committee has kept in abeyance the re allotment orders issued to genuine students in favour of few selected candidates who ARE ASKING FOR RULES TO BE CHANGED MIDWAY TO SUIT THEM

Second Counseling conducted for AIPG is different from the second counseling conducted for TNPG by a lot of factors

1. There is 22.% % reservation in AIPG

2. There is 69 % reservation in TNPG

3. There is NO WAITING LIST in AIPG

4. There is a Waiting LIST in TNPG

5. As per the Decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, it was clearly told that ONLY THOSE WHO HAD TAKEN a seat in the FIRST Counselling in AIPG was eligible for Change of Speciality or Location or Both in Second Counselling in AIPG

6. As per the Regulat
ions of TNPG, it is VERY CLEAR that those who have taken a Seat in First Counselling are eligible for change of Centre alone in the Re allotment Counselling and not FOR CHANGE OF COURSE

a. (f) If a candidate chooses to be only in the general waiting list, he or she will NOT BE GIVEN A FIRM SEAT in any of degree or diploma course

b. (g) If a candidate gets an allotment in the diploma course of a particular speciality at the time of counseling, he or she will be waitlisted for the degree course in the same speciality only AND NOT IN ANY OTHER SPECIALITY and arising vacancies in that speciality will be filled up taking into account the candidates kept under general waiting list

c. (h) A candidate who is allotted a firm seat in a degree course cannot remain in the General Waiting List

d. (i) Option once given during the counseling cannot be changed later

7. Thus it is futile to argue that the mode of second counseling being conducted for AIPG be replicated as the regulations ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT and Tamil Nadu has separate rules which are to be obeyed and followed. If some one asks the Secretary Selection Commitee to have only 22.5% reservation in TNPG stating that AIPG follows that, will the Secretary bow down to such Stupid Claims

8. The same is the case of different modes of allotment.

We would further like to state that the learned judges of High Court as well as Supreme Court has time and again ruled that the rules of Admission SHALL NOT BE CHANGED MIDWAY and any change has to be incorporated in the subsequent session only.

We would like to quote the words of the learned Judge MR.JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN in a historic Judgement Given W.P.No.15830 of 2003 and W.P.Nos. 16113, 16575, 16327, 13304, 15343, 14994, 14995, 15553, 15274, 15275, 15068, 15255, 15325, 15349, 15412, 15424, 15425, 15453, 15431, 15432, 15441, 15503, 15522, 15524, 15599, 15691, 15796, 16469, 16470 and 19112 of 2003 and W.P.M.P.Nos.19893, 19894, 20180, 20181, 20755, 20756, 20427, 16715, 19255, 22764, 22765, 18776, 18778, 23428, 21915, 22556, 19541, 19542, 19159 to 19162, 18870, 18871, 19151, 19230, 19259, 19260, 19341, 19357 to 19360, 19398, 19367, 19369, 19382, 19472, 19494, 19495, 19497, 19498, 19604, 19605, 19714, 19848, 19849, 20576 and 20577 of 2003 on 29/09/2003

The learned Judge has observed that

The policy canvassed by the petitioners may be a better one, but what the Court has to decide is whether the existing policy adopted by the Government is in any way inconsistent with or in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of any other provisions of the Constitution of India or arbitrary or unreasonable or unfair.

Also we would like to quote the following Judgments of Supreme Court. On Nov 4, 2003, the honorable Supreme court gave 50% Allotment to AIPG (previously it was just 25 %) but 50 % was allotted for AIPG ONLY FROM 2005-2006 session and not from 2004-2005 session as the Notification for 2004 session was already issued before the judgement in Oct 2003. As per Court Judgements, Once a notification is issued policy changes should be initiated only in the next session.

Also the Case for second counseling of AIPG was filed in 2005, but it was followed only in the NEXT ACADEMIC SESSION.

Hence in NO WAY the current Admission norms can be changed midway. All the previous judgements of High Courts and Supreme Court are violated when a NEW RULE IS INTRODUCED with a ulterior motive of illegally, immorally, unethically allowing a candidate who has taken MD Gen Medicine (when PD Paediatrics was available for a BC Service Candidate at the Rank of 38) in first phase to take MD Paediatrics in the Second Phase.

The candidate at that time had willingly opted out of MD Paediatrics even when a seat was available for BC Service at the rank of 38 and had opted for MD General Medicine. Moreover the last MD Paed Seat for BC Service was taken by a candidate at Rank 51. Hence the claim is totally nefarious, evil, despicable, immoral, reprehensible, and condemnable and selection committee should not give in for such ILLEGAL Demands.

Hence we expect and request that the original norms be followed to the letter in an unbiased way as per the notification issued during the first phase itself.

We would also like to quote from the Judgements of High Courts

As per the judgement in W.P.No.16327 of 2003 of Chennai High Court

Learned Advocate General submitted that the (representations) are not maintainable, and according to him, the prospectus is binding and the petitioner who have taken up the examinations on the basis of the prospectus are not entitled to question the same aft
er (wards)

Thus if the Petitioners had felt that the prospectus was unfair, they should have represented this matter before the exam itself. Or they should have represented before the mark list was published

As per the judgement in W.P.No.16327 of 2003 of Chennai High Court

Learned Advocate General also submitted that some of the petitioners have filed the (applications) petitions after taking up the counselling and since they took up the chance in the counselling and after having failed in the process of selection, it is not open to them to challenge the prospectus.

In Dr.R.MURALI v. Dr.R.KAMALAKKANNAN (2000) 1 SLR 600) a Full Bench of Chennai High Court has held that

the petitioner having participated in the examinations after fully knowing the terms and conditions of prospectus is estopped from questioning the selection process. The Full Bench of this Court after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla (1986 SCC ( Supp) 285), Union of India v. Chandrasekaran (1998 (3) SCC 694), S. Muthumanickam v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. By Commissioner and Secretary, Education, Science and Technology Department (1985 WLR 357) and Dr. Suryanarayan Raju v. The Government of Tamil Nadu (1992 WLR 579), held that the petitioners having acquiesced in the prescriptions in the prospectus are not entitled to question the same. I hold that the above decisions would squarely apply to the facts of the case and it is not open to the petitioners herein to challenge clauses the prospectus.

Judgements given in W.P.No.11266 of 2003 by Chennai High Court are also of the same view that the prospectus should not be tinkered with

Hence we request you madam, to abide by the Rules and Regulations and the Judgements of the High Courts and Supreme Courts. And not to amend rules midway to illegally and immorally benefit few selected

Yours Truly

Affected Students