[Reader-list] 'Striking AIIMS docs live in a glass house'

[Shivam]

Someone told me that one of the leaders of the anti-reservation
campaign back in '91 was himself a doctor through "management quota".
I am convinced beyond doubt that the real reason why most people are
protesting against reservations is because their own seats are hurt,
their own prospects are hurt (or may be they are not, especially since
the government is increasing seats, but perception can be as
devastating as reality when it comes to middle class insecurity).
"Merit" and "votebank politics" are fake excuses - the same middle
class does not mind overlooking merit when it comes to itself; the
same middle class doesn't mind having reservations based on economic
status by overlooking merit, the same middle class does not mind
"votebank politics" is the votebank is the middle class.

Shame on them.

Best,
Shivam

o o o o o



Striking AIIMS docs live in a glass house
Akshaya Mukul
[ Tuesday, May 23, 2006 01:55:32 amTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1543278.cms


RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

NEW DELHI: The main grouse of AIIMS students - at the forefront of the
stir against 27% reservation for OBCs - is that merit is being
sacrificed at the altar of votebank politics. But they forget two
things: 25% reservation that AIIMS graduates get in PG admission and
the Supreme Court judgment of 2001 that declares the earlier system of
33% reservation for them bad in law.

In fact, the SC, while stating that 33% institutional reservation is
"unconstitutional", agreed with the findings of the Delhi High Court,
which had earlier set aside the reservation.

The HC had found that "AIIMS students, who had secured as low as 14%
or 19% or 22% in the (all-India) entrance examination got admission to
PG courses while SC or ST candidates could not secure admission in
their 15% or 7% quota in PG courses, in spite of having obtained marks
far higher than the in-house candidates of the institute." HC had
analysed admission data over five years.

The apex court also agreed with the HC that the "figure of 33%
reservation for in-house candidates was statistically so arrived at as
to secure 100% reservation for AIIMS students. There were about 40
AIIMS candidates. The PG seats being 120, 33% thereof worked out to be
40." That meant all 40 AIIMS graduates were assured of PG seats.

Merit here was clearly being sacrificed, the study showed. For
instance, in the January 1996 session, an AIIMS student with 46.167%
marks - lowest for an AIIMS student that year - got PG admission.

However, an SC student with the same grades was admitted but denied
coveted course such as obstetrics and gynaecology. The SC student got
shunted to community while AIIMS students easily won berths in
prestigious disciplines.

Twelve AIIMS candidates were selected even though they got less marks
than the SC candidate who secured 60.33% marks. Similarly, 16 AIIMS
students got admission to PG courses even though they got less marks
than another ST student who got 62.16%.

Basing itself on this study, SC said, "Institutional reservation is
not supported by the Constitution or constitutional principles." "A
certain degree of preference for students of the same institution
intended to prosecute further studies therein is permissible on
grounds of convenience, suitability and familiarity with an
educational environment," it added.

Preferences, the court said, had to be "reasonable and not
excessive...Minimum standards cannot be so diluted as to become
practically non-existent." In the similar vein, SC said, "It cannot be
forgotten that the medical graduates of AIIMS are not 'sons of soil'.
They are drawn from all over the country."

The court reasoned that these students had "no moorings in Delhi. They
are neither backward nor weaker sections of society. Their achieving
an all-India merit and entry in the premier institution of national
importance should not bring in a brooding sense of complacence in
them".

Extending the damning logic, the court said in preserving quotas for
its own students, "the zeal for preserving excellence is lost. The
students lose craving for learning."