Alleged irregularities in the selection of examiners for the Gynaecology paper at the private-run Mahatma Gandhi Mission (MGM) College have surfaced hinting at the bias spreading to the extended family of the medical fraternity. What's more disturbing is the admission by the university that the clout some teachers wield is so overwhelming that there is little anyone can do about it.

Sources at the university say the examination panel for medical courses which met in March to decide the list of examiners for the June-July and October-November examination at the Government Medical College here was attended among others by Dr P M Jadhav and Dr Avinash Yelikar. While there is nothing unusual about that, what has raised eyebrows is that Dr Yelikar's wife, Kanan, is beingconsidered as an examiner for the MD Gynaecology examination, which Dr Jadhav's daughter is also taking!

Though the rules don't specifically forbid the presence of examination panelists related to examiners or candidates from attending such meetings, according to precedent such a practice is strongly discouraged.

What's more, two other appointments to the examination panel at the MGM College here have evoked strong resentment, especially as they violate the rules of the Medical Council of India (MCI), the apex body governing medical education in the country.

The same university examination panel has appointed Dr S S Shirodkar as chairperson of the Gynaecology examination and Dr A M Deshpande as examiner for the undergraduate examination at the MGM College, of which Dr P M Jadhav is director.

In a letter to the university's vice-chancellor, Dr Shivraj Nakade, Dr Deshpande has pointed out that seniority has blatantly been given the go-by in the selection. She questions the logic by which Dr Shirodkar,who holds the rank of lecturer, has been appointed as chairperson of the panel of examiners while she herself is merely a member. Dr Deshpande holds the rank of associate professor.

Teachers point out that the examination branch of the university is under obligation to provide the bio-data of the list of examiners being considered by the examination panel before examiners are appointed. Hence, they say, the university cannot claim it is an `error' on its part. They add that a similar situation had arisen the previous year and it was rectified again only after Dr Deshpande brought it to the notice of the authorities.

The MCI's rules categorically state that the senior-most teacher on the panel of examiners for a particular examination will act as chairperson of the board. It is therefore no coincidence that Dr Shirodkar's name surfaces for the post each time the university appoints the panel of examiners for the Gynaecology paper.

In her complaint, Dr Deshpande also points out that Dr Shirodkar'sappointment to the panel itself is another violation of the MCI's rules, which prohibit teachers engaged in private practice being selected.

Vice-Chancellor of the university Dr Shivraj Nakade had little to say about the irregularities except that he would ``inquire into the matter''.