Editor,
Apropos of the letter titled, “Timely information for NEET aspirants imperative” (ST June 28, 2025), I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed by the medical aspirant. I strongly believe that the Health and Family Welfare Department of the state should immediately invite applications for medical seats through government quota and subsequently publish the merit list at the earliest possible date.
Furthermore, it would be beneficial if the department could inform the probable total number of seats available under government sponsorship. This proactive step would enable candidates like myself to ascertain our status in the NEET 2025 ranking and make informed decisions about our future.
With timely information, we can decide whether to:
1. Wait for government seats this year
2. Explore private medical education options
3. Enroll in coaching classes for NEET 2026
I hope the Department takes immediate action to provide us with the necessary information, allowing us to plan our next steps accordingly.
Thank you for highlighting this important issue.
Yours etc.,
Name withheld on request,
Via email
Law misquoted, questions deserve answers
Editor,
Lynzander Sohkhlet’s article from last week is amusing; in it, he claimed that letters by me and Kyrsoibor Pyrtuh, had struck emotional chords but distorted both the legal and factual landscape of the issue. He makes this extraordinary claim by citing section 10, subsection (1) of the 2014 Street Vendors Act, which states that every street vendor must operate strictly according to the conditions specified in their vending certificate. Anything outside of that framework is unlawful. He however, does not mention what the conditions of vending are that are mentioned in the Act to which he is referring to. Instead, he goes into the IPC code and an old judgment delivered in the late 1980s. It is to be remembered that in 2010 it was the Supreme Court of India which directed the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation to draft a bill on street vendors to protect them from harassment by police and civic authorities, demarcation of “vending zones” based on “traditional natural markets,” proper representation of vendors and women in decision-making bodies, and establishment of effective grievance redress and dispute resolution mechanism. Parliament subsequently drafted and passed the bill in 2014. What is also confusing about his claim is that there is actually no subsection (1) of section 10! Is he confused or did he just make up a new section?
There are two reasons for people to make false claims. First, they are not aware of the existence of additional documents or information on a particular issue and therefore their claims are based on incomplete knowledge. One can forgive such lapses since sometimes it’s difficult to have all the information, especially if they are not in the public domain. The second, however, is a more serious one. We all know people who have a habit of lying in public just so that they can prove their point, even though they know they are misleading the public. They will distort information to suit their purpose. Such individuals can go to any extent to get what they want. So, I am trying to understand in which category Lynzander falls. There is a way to determine it.
I would like to ask Lynzander to cite provisions from the Street Vendors Act 2014 itself which talks about the conditions of vending and how the hawkers are violating it. It is important because the conditions will not come from outside the Act, but from within its provisions. This actually comes from Section 10 (no subsection 1) which he cited in his article “Cancellation or suspension of certificate of vending: Where a street vendor who has been issued a certificate of vending under this Act commits breach of any of the conditions thereof or any other terms and conditions specified for the purpose of regulating street vending under this Act or any rules or schemes made thereunder” or in simple words the conditions of vending cannot come from outside the legal framework of the Act. So, is sitting on the footpaths of Khyndailand a violation of the Act? I think these questions are very important because he has accused me and Kyrsoibor Pyrtuh of distorting the law. I want to understand in what way? Then we will know whether he is misinformed or deliberately trying to mislead people.
Yours etc.,
Bhogtoram Mawroh,
Via email
Meghalaya Education Grant
Editor,
The reaction of VPP on Meghalaya Education Grant Proposal is well timed and thought provoking. In Meghalaya, most schools are under private management. The community church, linguistic minorities established these institutions and some institutions are over a hundred years old. The State Government grants recognition to these institutions and funds them.
The Government of Assam in 1957, introduced a system of maintenance of grants known as “Deficit Grant-in-aid”, with a view to extending the benefits of government prescribed pay scales to attract good quality teachers for providing quality education. The VPP rightly mentioned, “It is a known fact that the deficit schools and colleges in Meghalaya are the most significant contributors toward education.”
The system inherited from the Assam government is still pursued with little modifications. The Government of Meghalaya from time to time assumed the entire financial liability to bring the salaries of the teaching and non-teaching staff at par with government teachers except for pension and medical benefits and the Pay Commissions always extended the revision of pay accordingly. Now the benefits of pension are also extended.
There was a moratorium on bringing more schools under the deficit system of grants-in-aid since 1989. On the other hand, teachers under Adhoc grants-in-aid system and non-Adhoc grants-in-aid system got recognition but get very low salary not to speak of allowances etc. The situation needs reviewing since there are huge disparities in the salary which has to be narrowed down. Up-gradation or uniformity of salaries is necessary. At the same time it is not possible to bring all institutions in one category.
The deficit system of Grants-in-aid which already formed a part of the system cannot be done away with the VPP rightly mentioned, “It is a known fact that the deficit schools and colleges in Meghalaya are the most significant contributors towards education”.
The name deficit grants may be changed with MEG but there will be Category I, II, III. MEG, it seems, intends to put a moratorium on filling up vacancies of institutions, but the government will definitely consider all relevant issues. At this transition time vacancies resulting from the retirement/ resignation or otherwise of teaching and non-teaching staff being put on hold has created serious problems in enabling the delivery of proper education to students.
For instance, one institution which was brought under the deficit system in 1989, had only 12 teaching and non-teaching staff. Out of these three teaching staff retired and one non-teaching staff resigned. The institution’s advertisement was kept in abeyance and the institution does not have its own resources to appoint staff. There are so many such situations arising out of withholding fresh advertisement for appointment against vacancies.
Therefore, the Government should look into these matters and the problems created due to retirement and resignation in the larger interest of education in the state.
Yours etc.,
Dr S K Chattopadhyay
Via email