News Summary
- In the Medical Education Commission meeting, a proposal was presented to grant additional scholarships to Ekta Shah in line with a Cabinet decision.
- Commission members pointed out that the proposal violated existing law as MBBS seat allocation and admission processes had already been completed.
- Despite objections citing legal violations, the proposal was pushed forward under ministerial direction, revealing disagreements within the commission.
On March 19, Kathmandu – The 24th meeting of the Medical Education Commission was convened at 4:00 pm at the Prime Minister’s Office. Education Minister Sasmit Pokharel, who also serves as co-chair of the commission, Health Minister Nisha Mehta, and other commission members attended the meeting.
The meeting was called to implement a Cabinet decision. Although arrangements were made for Prime Minister Balen Shah to chair the meeting, he did not attend.
As Vice-Chair Dr. Anjanikumar Jha began reading the agenda, all present objected since the proposal raised by him was deemed to contravene existing laws.
On March 15, the Cabinet had resolved to grant an additional scholarship to Ekta Shah, who was injured during the Janajati movement, for MBBS studies.
The meeting was called to implement this decision, but the proposal itself conflicts with the law. The MBBS seat allocation, entrance exam, result publication, and student selection processes have already been completed for this year.
Since these procedures have been finalized and students selected, granting Ekta Shah an additional scholarship seat violates the law.
According to one member present, the proposal was forcibly approved under the pretext of implementing the Cabinet decision, despite it contravening legal provisions. The proposal was brought in based on the March 15 Cabinet decision to award the additional scholarship.
“This decision gives the impression that rules and laws do not matter. The number of scholarships, merit, and admission processes are all determined by law, but giving an additional seat on the basis of being ‘injured’ violates legal procedures,” said the member.
Members indicated that the agenda was not clearly conveyed at the meeting’s start.
They were initially only informed that the meeting would implement the Cabinet decision, but the issue of granting an additional scholarship was introduced only after attendance.
Members recalled that after the proposal was introduced, several raised doubts about the legal framework and scholarship limits. Some objected saying decisions could not disregard the law, but the proposal was advanced under ministerial direction.
One member described the proposal as being imposed under the guise of implementing the Cabinet’s decision.
“We were not fully informed about the agenda. Later we found out that an additional seat was to be granted. The decision seemed to be forced forward,” the member stated.
Under current arrangements, scholarships are distributed according to merit and legal criteria. Granting an additional seat to a single individual on the basis of injury during the Janajati movement calls into question the merit-based admission system, they argued.
“This is a policy issue. If rules are broken for one person today, it risks opening the door for others in the future,” the member added.
How the Law Was Overridden
Ekta Shah scored 57.5 marks on the MBBS entrance exam and ranked 7,640th in eligibility order.
She is from Barju Gaupalika-6, Sunsari. The Cabinet had instructed the Medical Education Commission on March 15 to provide an additional scholarship seat for her, citing her status as an injured activist, with ‘injury card’ number 165.
The commission’s agenda notes that the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, following the Cabinet’s decision, received budget approval from the Ministry of Finance on February 28 to cover the additional scholarship costs from the current fiscal year’s grant to medical education providers.
However, this decision conflicts with existing law.
According to the National Medical Education Act, 2075 (2018), only the commission has the authority to determine the number of seats at educational institutions. Section 17 states that the commission shall annually set seat numbers for universities, institutes, and other teaching institutions based on established criteria.
Furthermore, subsection (3) of Section 17 requires admissions of students selected through entrance exams to follow a matching system.
For the academic year 2082/83, as of August 15, the commission has already allocated 2,635 seats across various institutions.
The MBBS entrance exam was conducted from November 1 to 5, with results published and admissions through a matching system reaching the final stages.
If the Cabinet’s decision is implemented as is, it directly conflicts with Section 17 provisions regarding student admission and the academic calendar.
Since the seats have been finalized and students selected, creating an additional scholarship seat violates the intent of the law, another member stated.
“The seats have already been determined. The entrance exam has been conducted. The merit list has been finalized. Granting extra seats or scholarships under the Cabinet’s directive bypasses the law,” the member said.
Members also said the rule requiring agendas to be provided at least 24 hours before meetings was violated.
“We were informed about the meeting at 4 pm on Wednesday, but the agenda was shared only the previous night, and it only mentioned ‘implementation of Cabinet decision’ without details,” the member explained.
Critics claim the decision was pushed forward with a lack of transparency.
“Bringing such an agenda without notifying commission members suggests an attempt to pass the decision covertly,” the member said. “A Cabinet decision can never override the law.”
Some commission members are reportedly preparing to formally register dissent motions in upcoming meetings.
Vice-Chair Dr. Jha Remains Neutral
Vice-Chair Dr. Anjanikumar Jha confirmed that the topic of granting an additional scholarship to Ekta Shah was discussed during Wednesday’s meeting.
He said the Cabinet’s decision was brought forward for discussion but declined to comment on why the commission proposed an action that contradicts the law, stating, “I have no comment on this matter.”
He added that the issue remains under discussion and no approval has been granted. He also mentioned that other co-chairs have not contacted him for further clarification on this matter.
