Published Jul 25, 2023 | 12:53 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 25, 2023 | 1:01 PM
Dr Rashmita(in center) with HRDA and TJUDA members. (Supplied)
The MNR Medical College in Telangana’s Sangareddy district is raising a stink with the students and an administrator trading charges against each other.
While a post-graduate student of Anesthesiology accused the college of vindictively failing her in the practical examination, an assistant director of the college charged her and a few other students with assaulting him on the institute premises.
The student, Dr P Rashmita, and a few others had lodged a police complaint against Assistant Director Addala Narayana Raju for snooping around in the ladies’ hostel and indulging in inappropriate behavior.
A day after the complaint was lodged, Raju, too, approached the police, saying the students had assaulted him.
Dr Rashmita said the college warned her of consequences if she did not withdraw the complaint against Raju. When the student did not relent, the college allegedly failed her in the practical examination.
The post-graduate student said they approached the police after the medical superintendent and college principal failed to act on their complaint against Raju.
“We lodged a complaint against him with the police. This person was entering the washrooms and taking inappropriate pictures of women. It is unacceptable,” Dr Rashmita told South First.
The student scored 346 out of 700 in the practical examination, four less than the pass mark of 350. Dr Rashmita cleared the theory examination scoring 235 out of 400.
On 3 November, 2022, Dr Rashmita and two other women students complained to the Sangareddy police that Raju entered their changing room and bathroom around 12 midnight on 1 November. He was not accompanied by any women attendant.
In the same complaint, another student, Dr Yogeshwari, raised concerns about Raju’s inappropriate behavior.
“He visits the women’s hostel at midnight and takes pictures of the residents in night dress. Moreover, he would visit the hostel during morning hours and take pictures of the woman residents emerging from the bathroom, clad in towels or shirts. He would justify his actions by claiming that it was part of an inspection,” Dr Yogeshwari complained.
Another student, Dr Lavanya, said Raju entered the duty room around midnight a few months ago and conducted checks, including the washroom.
“This kind of intrusive behavior occurred multiple times, causing distress and discomfort to the women staff,” she said in her complaint.
After receiving the complaint, the police filed an FIR under section, 354D (offense of stalking) and 509 (act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the IPC.
Dr Rashmita said that, besides complaining, they also demanded the suspension of Raju.
“But instead of addressing the issue, the college administration started pressuring and threatening me to withdraw the case, or else they would fail me in the upcoming practical examinations,” she told South First.
The student alleged that just before the exams, the management contacted them and insisted on immediately withdrawing the case. “We were also warned of severe consequences. They claimed they had control over our attendance and practical examination results,” she added.
When asked who threatened them, they mentioned the college principal.
“Initially, we considered withdrawing the case after the exams and things settled down. However, they kept pressuring us to withdraw it before the examinations, creating immense pressure,” the student said.
Principal Dr T Venkat Ramanaiah refuted the charges.
“I understand that the student has made serious allegations. But regarding her failing in the practical examinations, I want to clarify that it cannot be considered as concrete facts. Her failure in the examination and the November incident may be coincidental, but the student’s version is not true,” he told South First.
“Additionally, she was not the only person involved in the matter. Many other students were also involved, but only she failed in the examination,” he pointed out.
Dr Rashmita offered a reason for the college failing her. “I was in the final year, while another student involved was still doing her internship, and in junior batch,” she said.
When Dr Rashmita charged that the college had told them in advance that she would fail, Dr Ramanaiah said that he was not involved in any vindictive action.
“I must clarify that the examination process is completely confidential. It is between the examiner and the student, and I have very minimal involvement in it. I am not an examiner, and I don’t have the authority to pass or fail students,” he explained.
However, Dr Ramanaiah admitted to asking the students to withdraw the case against Raju.
“I asked her to drop the complaint on the firm belief that it would have affected her future. There were complaints made by the assistant director Mr Raju against the students, and the students also made allegations against him. I tried to mediate between the parties, but it didn’t lead to a compromise. My only concern was for her well-being and success in the examination,” he added.
Meanwhile, Assistant Director Raju’s narrative of the 1 November was different. He, too, had lodged a police complaint against 18 students, including Dr Rashmita.
In his complaint, Raju explained that his job included the supervision of civil works, accommodation, and other facilities on the campus.
On 1 November, he was making his rounds in the newly-constructed operation theaters to check the pending civil works in the accommodation provided for the doctors attached to the theaters.
He claimed the male and female students were mingling “intimately”, which was “disgusting”. “The security staff brought it to my notice after seeing the CCTV footage. I took the issue to the notice of the management,” he said.
Raju also alleged that the students had on earlier occasions indulged in breaching the college rules, such as leaving the hospital during duty hours, not returning throughout the night, and bringing outside food to the college and hospital.
Raju said he acted against such behaviour which might have irked the postgraduate students.
Also, during his inspection, he observed that the glass of the waiting room’s door was covered with papers, blocking the view and hindering the overview of waiting-room occupancy.
Concerned over the blocked view, he asked the nursing superintendent to remove the paper. This action angered the postgraduate students present in the waiting room, who misunderstood Raju’s action as a breach of their privacy.
Despite his explanation, the students began a protest on 2 November, demanding an explanation and apology from him.
“I tried my best to clarify and explain the situation to the students at a meeting convened by the principal. However, they refused to listen and resorted to physical violence. I sought protection in the security room, but the students followed me and physically assaulted me. They even had scalpels with them,” Raju said in his complaint.
Raju was allegedly assaulted on 2 November. Dr Rashmita and two others lodged the complaint against him on 3 November, and Raju complained against the students on 4 November. In his complaint, he identified 18 students, including Dr Rashmita.
The police registered a case under sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 448 (house-trespass), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC.
Principal Dr Ramanaiah said he asked both parties to withdraw the complaints, fearing it would affect the students’ future.
“When I asked Mr Raju to drop the case, he demanded me to ask my students to drop the case against him. So, I did request her, as well as others, to drop the case for the sake of their future. My intention was to prevent any further complications and maintain the reputation of the institution,” he said.
He added that the student’s failure and her correlation with past events might be influenced by her emotions.
“I empathise with her and I understand her agony. Unfortunately, she is going through all this, but I want to clarify that any correlation between the two may not be accurate. My position in this matter is understandable, and I assure you that I have acted only in the best interest of the students and the institution,” Dr Ramanaiah said.
When contacted, the Circle Inspector of Sangareddy Rural Police said he was not well aware of the two cases since he was recently transferred. “I will let you know after reading the case file,” he told South First.
Dr Rashmita said the police had not started investigating the case.
Meanwhile, the Healthcare Reforms Doctors’ Association (HRDA) and Telangana Junior Doctors Association (TJUDA) have urged the vice-chancellor of Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (KNRUHS), Warangal, to conduct Dr Rashmita’s practical examinations at a different centre.
“It is crucial to note that she was the only student who failed in the practical exam, making it highly unusual and indicative of intentional actions against her. No other students faced such an outcome. This leads us to strongly believe that her failure was intentional, and it appears that someone in the department or the entire university might be involved,” President of HRDA Dr K Mahesh Kumar told South First.
He added that failing in practical exams is a rare occurrence, especially in private medical colleges.
“The circumstances strongly point to intentional actions aimed at threatening and demoralising her. We are not demanding a mere passing grade for her; instead, we are seeking a re-conduct of the examination specifically for her,” he said.
“This is a special case concerning the interests of all women fighting against such atrocities. Allowing this kind of pressure and injustice to persist would demoralise and discourage women who stand up against such acts,” Dr Kumar said.
“I want a fair examination conducted at a different government college centre. I just need a fair chance to take my practical examination,” she added.
Dr Rashmita said that she had submitted a letter to the university on 24 July. “However, the university said a committee should be formed, and it cannot make decisions on its own. I’m not sure if they will be able to help, but I’m hopeful that justice will prevail,” she said.
