The report issued by the Medical Education Commission, which has been investigating medical education for the past six years, has recommended taking action against former officials. It advises the Nepalese government against appointing individuals to governmental and semi-governmental positions in the future. The Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology has finally released the report, which it had been holding for six years. Notably, the report highlights the dismissal of the former Vice-Chancellor, Rector, and Registrar of Tribhuvan University from their positions, and recommends caution against appointing them to similar positions in the future.
Additionally, the report suggests removing Ram Prasad Khatiwada, Dean of the Science Department, and Rajendra Paudel Hari Parajuli from their positions as Executive Committee members due to their failure to fulfill duties, responsibilities, and maintain proper conduct.
Furthermore, it mentions that former Vice-Chancellor Hirabahadur Maharjan neglected to seek further collaboration with medical colleges regarding personal medication, prompting direct intervention from the Ministry of Education. This intervention, published in the Gorkhapatra Daily on Ashoj 10, 2070, undermines the authority of the Education Council. The report proposes disregarding decisions made by the Education Council and the Dean, suggesting instead to direct Dr. Karbir Nath Yogi's team to conduct a feasibility study. It also highlights the disregard for decisions made during a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Sushil Koirala on Kartik 24, 2071. Despite instructions for collaboration, the decision was not implemented. Legal advice from Advocate Narayan Prasad Khanal is recommended, noting that university legal advisers failed to implement directives to college principals. This led to negligence on the part of the Vice-Chancellor and others, resulting in the dismissal of the issue by the court on Falgun 19, 2073, due to lack of evidence. The report stresses the importance of legal advisers providing reasons for their opinions and acknowledges the weight of oral opinions in university administrative matters.
In conclusion, the report confirms the neglect of existing laws, judicial processes, and systems, as well as the provision of incorrect advice to officials involved in presenting conflicting relations with the law.
You can read the report by clicking here
