Madras High Court Confirms Order Of CB-CID Enquiry Into Medical Admission Scams

Upasana Sajeev

4 July 2022 7:30 AM GMT

  • Madras High Court Confirms Order Of CB-CID Enquiry Into Medical Admission Scams

    The Madras High Court on Monday confirmed the order of the single judge directing a CB-CID enquiry in a matter relating to series of scams relating to admissions to the medical courses in state. The court passed the order on an appeal filed by Dr G. Selvarajan, former secretary of the Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, seeking a stay of a single bench order whereby the...

    The Madras High Court on Monday confirmed the order of the single judge directing a CB-CID enquiry in a matter relating to series of scams relating to admissions to the medical courses in state.

    The court passed the order on an appeal filed by Dr G. Selvarajan, former secretary of the Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, seeking a stay of a single bench order whereby the court had found Selvarajan along with others guilty of not conducting the mop-up counselling for the management seats. The court had also found that Selvarajan and the other respondents in the writ petition were giving the seats to non-meritorious students to the exclusion of meritorious students. Thus, the court had ordered an enquiry against Dr Selvarajan and others and had issued directions to stop pension and other benefits payable to the individuals, subject to the outcome of the investigation.

    The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala observed that the proceedings against the appellant could continue and that the court could only interfere with respect to the stoppage of pensionary benefits to the appellant subject to the outcome of the enquiry proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings were to be completed within a period of six months and no extention of time would be granted. The court also agreed with the direction of the single judge to pay Rs. 4 lakh each to the writ petitioners as the students were dragged to the litigation only for the reason that the writ appellant did not conduct mop-counselling. 

    The court observed that the appellants could not claim that there was a paucity of time when the second round of mop-up counselling ended one month prior to the last date for completion of the process more so when the mop-up counselling was conducted for the government quota seats during that period. The court observed as under:

    "It is not that the writ appellant was not in the know of the vacant seats in the management quota seats after the second-round of counselling, but despite knowing it and even when the entire record was in his office, no effort was made to hold mop-up counselling to recommend the names of the candidates for management quota seats in the order of merit simultaneously while doing it for the government quota seats."

    Previously, while hearing the appeal, the court had sought response from the parties as to why a CBI enquiry should not be conducted. The court questioned the state on what actions were taken pursuant to the order of the single judge.

    Background

    NEET qualified students had approached High Court of Madras seeking directions to the authorities- The Director of General Health Services, the Director of the Directorate of Medical Education and the secretary of the selection committee, to conduct mop-up counselling for the management seats and to fill up the Post Graduate Medical seats declared as vacant as per the seat matrix. It was also alleged that seats were being granted to non-meritorious students as against meritorious students.

    The respondent had contended that the counselling was not conducted due to paucity of time owing to the unprecedented covid situation in the country.

    Unsatisfied with this stand, the court directed enquiry and observed that even though Selvarajan was now retired, it was under his authority that the illegal acts were done.

    Case Title: Dr G. Selvarajan v. Dr M.S Santhosh and Ors

    Case No: W.A No. 1093 of 2022

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 282

    Counsel for the Appellant: Mr Sricharan Rangarajan for Mr V.Vignesh

    Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Murugendran, Mr R.Shunmugasundram Advocate General assisted by Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader and Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate, Mr S.Udayakumar, Mr S.Thankasivan


    Next Story