MD/MS admissions at GMCH-32: Quota row reaches high court

The high court has sought response by August 16 on the plea by Shubham Jund and others, who have alleged that Chandigarh’s decision was unilateral and arbitrary, and will severely impact the possibility of Institutional Preference pool candidates getting a specialty/discipline of their choice

The Punjab and Haryana high court has sought response from the Chandigarh administration on a plea challenging changes in the admission process for MD and MS courses at Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), Sector 32.

As per the prospectus, of the total 148 seats, 72 seats are allocated to all-India quota, while the remaining 72 (SC:10, General: 62 and EWS: 4) are earmarked for state quota. State quota is further divided into two categories: IP Pool and the UT Chandigarh Pool, both comprising 36+2 (EWS) seats each. (HT File)

The high court has sought response by August 16 on the plea by Shubham Jund and others, who have alleged that UT’s decision was unilateral and arbitrary, and will severely impact the possibility of Institutional Preference Pool (IP) pool candidates getting a specialty/discipline of their choice.

As per the prospectus, of the total 148 seats, 72 seats are allocated to all-India quota, while the remaining 72 (SC:10, General: 62 and EWS: 4) are earmarked for state quota. State quota is further divided into two categories: IP Pool and the UT Chandigarh Pool, both comprising 36+2 (EWS) seats each.

As per the plea, earlier, the candidates from IP Pool could opt for a specialty/discipline/branch of their choice, either in the UT Pool or in the IP Pool, on the basis of their merit position. However, on August 4, the administration made a change, mandating that an IP Pool candidate should firstly be adjusted against the seats of preferred branch available in IP Pool. However, if the preferred branch is not available, then, subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria of UT Pool, the candidate can be considered for the branch of preferred choice under UT Pool.

UT’s counsel submitted that the decision was formally reached by the administration after thorough examination from every possible perspective, based on due analysis of the empirical data and other relevant factors that were required to be taken into consideration.

It was also submitted that the petitioners were stated to have submitted a representation before the administrator and by the adjourned date, a decision will be taken on that.