Of late a lot of guys are mailing me from abroad asking details about MBBS and how to do residency etc . This post is for them
MBBS
You enter here after your School (School in India is 14 years including 2 Year Kinder Garden. You enter Standard 1 after completion of 5 years and study till 12th. After 12th you enter college - whether it is engineering or arts or law or commerce or medical)
MBBS Course
4 and half years........
I MBBS
Where you read Anatomy , Physiology and Biochemistry for one year. Only when you pass this exam, you are allowed to go to II MBBS
II MBBS
You read Pathology , Pharmacology , Microbiology and Forensic Medicine for one and half years. After clearing all this 4 subjects you go to III MBBS. The lecture classes of these subjects will be in the afternoon. In the morning you will be attending Medicine Surgery and other wards
III MBBS or Final MBBS - Part IOne Year
You read SPM, ENT and Opthal and pass that
The lecture classes of these subjects will be in the afternoon. In the morning you will be attending Medicine Surgery and other wards
ENT and Opthal Wards will also be in the morning
III MBBS or Final MBBS - Part IOne Year
Theory and Wards on Medicine, Surgery, OG and Paediatrics
Only if you pass, you are allowed into internship
Intership 1 year after 4.5 yearsYou work in the hospital attached to the medical college.
When you "pass" all the papers in Final MBBS part II, YOu are allowed to do your internship.
After you complete your internship (0ne full year), you will be given the DEGREE and will be given a registration number by the Medical Council of India.
Then you can practise
If you want to specialise in Surgery, you have to do 3 year post graduation MS General Surgery. For that you have to write an entrance exam and get a good rank there.
If you want to specialise in Paediatrics , you have to do 3 year post graduation MD Paediatrics . For that you have to write an entrance exam and get a good rank there.
An MD guys spents 3 years (studying MD) AFTER Completing 5 and half years as MBBS
An MS guys spents 3 years (studying MS) AFTER Completing 5 and half years as MBBS
So in fact MD Guys spent 8 and half years in total
So in fact MS Guys spent 8 and half years in total
An DM Guy spends 3 years (studying DM ) after MD
An MCh Guy spends 3 years (studying MCh ) after MS
So in fact DM Guys spent 11 and half years in total
So in fact MCh Guys spent 11 and half years in total
is it clear
MD = MBBS + MD
MS = MBBS + MS
DM = MD + DM
or DM = MBBS + MD + DM
MCh = MS + MCh
or MCh = MBBS + MS + MCh
So MD is superior to MBBS and DM is superior to MD
Search This Site
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
No back-door entry in public employment
From the Hindu
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2006091113260100.htm&date=2006/09/11/&prd=th&
A Bench consisting of Justices G.P. Mathur and Dalveer Bhandari held that the High Courts could not issue directions to regularise the services of temporary or ad hoc employees in the absence of any existing vacancies.
Cautioning the High Courts, the Bench said: ``It would be improper for the courts to give directions for regularisation of services of the person who is working either as daily-wager, ad hoc employee, probationer, temporary or contractual employee, not appointed following the procedure laid down under Articles 14 (equality before law), 16 (equality of opportunity in matters of public employment) and 309 (recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State) of the Constitution. In our constitutional scheme, there is no room for back door entry in the matter of public employment.''
The Bench said: ``The Union, the States, their departments and instrumentalities have resorted to irregular appointments, especially in the lower rungs of the service, without reference to the duty to ensure a proper appointment procedure and to permit these irregular appointees or those appointed on contract or on daily wages, to continue year after year, thus, keeping out those who are qualified to apply for the post concerned and depriving them of an opportunity to compete for the post.''
``It has also led to persons who get employed, without following a regular procedure or even through the back door or on daily wages, approaching the courts, seeking directions to make them permanent in their posts and to prevent regular recruitment to the posts concerned."
Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Bhandari said: ``It is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. A regular appointment to a post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement and inviting applications from eligible candidates.''
Appellant Surendra Prasad Tewari was appointed by Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, on a temporary basis and he continued in the job for 14 years based on interim directions of the court. Ultimately, the Allahabad High Court rejected his plea for regularisation. The Bench confirmed the High Court order and rejected his appeal seeking to quash the impugned judgment.
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2006091113260100.htm&date=2006/09/11/&prd=th&
- Temporary employees have no vested right to be regularised: Supreme Court
- High Courts could not issue directions to regularise services in the absence of any existing vacancies
- Adherence to the rule of equality in public employment a basic feature of Constitution
A Bench consisting of Justices G.P. Mathur and Dalveer Bhandari held that the High Courts could not issue directions to regularise the services of temporary or ad hoc employees in the absence of any existing vacancies.
Cautioning the High Courts, the Bench said: ``It would be improper for the courts to give directions for regularisation of services of the person who is working either as daily-wager, ad hoc employee, probationer, temporary or contractual employee, not appointed following the procedure laid down under Articles 14 (equality before law), 16 (equality of opportunity in matters of public employment) and 309 (recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State) of the Constitution. In our constitutional scheme, there is no room for back door entry in the matter of public employment.''
The Bench said: ``The Union, the States, their departments and instrumentalities have resorted to irregular appointments, especially in the lower rungs of the service, without reference to the duty to ensure a proper appointment procedure and to permit these irregular appointees or those appointed on contract or on daily wages, to continue year after year, thus, keeping out those who are qualified to apply for the post concerned and depriving them of an opportunity to compete for the post.''
``It has also led to persons who get employed, without following a regular procedure or even through the back door or on daily wages, approaching the courts, seeking directions to make them permanent in their posts and to prevent regular recruitment to the posts concerned."
Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Bhandari said: ``It is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. A regular appointment to a post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement and inviting applications from eligible candidates.''
Appellant Surendra Prasad Tewari was appointed by Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, on a temporary basis and he continued in the job for 14 years based on interim directions of the court. Ultimately, the Allahabad High Court rejected his plea for regularisation. The Bench confirmed the High Court order and rejected his appeal seeking to quash the impugned judgment.
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)