Govt spends Rs 25L on each medical student in State

Govt spends Rs 25L on each medical student in State

The State government on Monday informed the High Court that the government incurs an expenditure of Rs 25 lakh on every medical student by allotting seats at subsidised fees in government colleges and government seats in private medical colleges.

Advocate General Ravivarma Kumar, while arguing in a petition challenging the retrospective implementation of the law making it mandatory for medical students to serve one year at government hospitals in rural areas, said that the policy was framed only to bridge the gap between rural health services and the increasing medical seats and colleges in the State.

He said that the government will not be able to deliver on the fundamental right of health otherwise and that the Act was not retrospective, but a legislation passed for a prospective future. The AG said that the degree of the students would not be taken away or denied and that the law had been enacted for the betterment of the community and society at large.

Justice Ravi Malimath heard the petition filed by Busra Abdul Aleem and other medical students who have approached the court, challenging the retrospective implementation of the Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012, from July 24, 2015. The said Act makes it compulsory for medical students to serve one year in government hospitals, primary health centres (PHCs), etc, in rural areas. The rule applies to all medical students, including those in MBBS, PG and diploma courses in government medical colleges or government seats in private colleges to serve in government PHCs, hospitals for one year to get their certificates.

The petitioner has contended that she has applied for United States Medical Licensing Examination, has to attend coaching classes from next month and would require the degree certificate. The Act says that unless the medical students complete one-year compulsory service, the degree certificate will not be issued. The petitioner has contended that implementing the law retrospectively is unconstitutional as there was no such law when she was admitted to the course and that she has to undergo another year of training. The petitioner has sought a stay on certain sections of the Act and to declare the Act unconstitutional. The bench adjourned the matter to Tuesday.

DH Newsletter Privacy Policy Get top news in your inbox daily
Comments (+)