New Delhi -°C
Today in New Delhi, India

Sep 19, 2020-Saturday



Select Country
Select city
Home / Mumbai News / Doc with diploma seeks HC intervention to attain degree status

Doc with diploma seeks HC intervention to attain degree status

mumbai Updated: Aug 04, 2020 00:03 IST
K A Y Dodhiya
K A Y Dodhiya

The Bombay high court (HC) on Monday directed a doctor to amend his petition to challenge the June 2018 notification of the state which changed the status of diploma courses for post-graduate (PG) medical education to degree courses.

The doctor in his petition claimed that he completed the two-year diploma course in March and is asked to continue his practice amid the Covid-19 outbreak under the diploma status. He also submitted that as there is a possibility of continuing being on Covid-19 duty as a diploma student for nine more months, he should receive the benefit of being a degree holder.

A division bench of justice Ujjal Bhuyan and justice Milind Jadhav, while hearing the petition of Dr Shashikant Morale, was informed by advocate Vijay Thorat that his client took an admission in the PG diploma course in May 2018. A month later, the state government came out with a notification which changed the status of PG medical diploma courses into degree courses. Thorat submitted that when his client sought to be given the benefit of the degree status for the course, he was refused on the ground that the notification could not be applied retrospectively.

Aggrieved by the refusal, he approached the court, seeking direction to the Medical Council of India to extend the benefit of the change for him. Thorat submitted that his client was asked to continue his duty as a diploma student amid the outbreak. Thorat submitted that as Dr Morale had already completed three months in excess of the two years needed for the diploma course and was willing to serve another nine months, he should be given a degree certificate at the end of his duty instead of a diploma certificate.

The counsel for the doctor also said that the notification was discriminatory and violated the provisions under Article 14 of the Constitution and so should be struck down.

After hearing the submissions, the bench observed that as the petitioner did not challenge the notification, the court granted liberty to him to amend the petition and include the challenge to the notification itself and posted the matter for hearing on August 20.

ht epaper

Sign In to continue reading