Common test for medical courses
The Supreme Court on Thursday laid down a set of guidelines for appointment of the central vigilance commissioner (CVC) and vigilance commissioners in view of non-compliance of some of the key provisions of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.delhi Updated: Mar 08, 2011 00:49 IST
The Supreme Court on Thursday laid down a set of guidelines for appointment of the central vigilance commissioner (CVC) and vigilance commissioners in view of non-compliance of some of the key provisions of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
The SC on Monday directed the Medical Council of India (MCI) to implement the notification to conduct a common entrance test (CET) for state and all medical seats from this academic session.
A bench of justice RV Raveendran and justice AK Patnaik gave the order and specified that the direction would also be applicable to private medical colleges in the country. CET has to be held for both, undergraduate and post-graduate courses.
The common test would minimise stress levels of students who write several entrance exams in a bid to cement their chances in at least one college. About four lakh students appear for 35,000 MBBS seats each year. Seveteen different entrance tests are held for this. Seventy-five thousand students appear for post-graduate medical admissions awarded through 20 different tests.
The direction came on MCI’s plea to hold the single common entrance test. The council had moved an application before the court in October last. The plea was made in a pending matter wherein students sought a court direction for holding a single entrance test.
The petitioners’ advocate ADN Rao said: “As per the notification, MCI would nominate a body for conducting the exam. The results would specify a student’s all ranking as well as the state ranking. Depending upon the ranking the candidate would get admission either in the state college or a Central University.”
MCI’s move to introduce CET was opposed by state governments following which the Centre had initiated a process of consultation to resolve the differences on the issue.
Though the court had, in an interim order on December 18 last year, allowed MCI to go ahead with the CET, it had decided to hear the objections filed by various stakeholders.