(T.S. Thakur, C.J. and R. Banumathi, J.)
State of U.P. and Others __________________________ Petitioner(s);
v.
Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan ________________________ Respondent.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13832/2016, decided on May 12, 2016
(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T., exemption from fling C/C of the impugned judgment and interim relief and office report) With SLP(C) No. 13872/2016 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and Interim Relief) S.L.P.(C)…….. of 2016 (CC No. 8709-8711/2016) (With (With (With appln.(s) for permission to file SLP and appln.(s) for permission to file SLP and appln.(s) for permission to file SLP and Office Report)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13832/2016; WA No. 34118/2015; SLP(C) No. 13872/2016; and S.L.P.(C)…….. of 2016 (CC No. 8709-8711/2016)
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has in terms of the impugned judgment quashed Government Order dated 28th February, 2014 whereby 30% seats in post-graduate degree courses in medicine and other disciplines have been reserved for in-service candidates who had three years or more of rural service in notified and difficult areas. The High Court has relying upon the judgment of this Court in Sudhir N. v. State of Kerala – (2015) 6 SCC 685 held that the State Government could not by an executive order change the method of selection for admission of candidates for post-graduate courses in medical science so as to violate or dilute the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India in exercise of its powers under Section 33 of Medical Council of India Act. Regulation 9 of the Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 which deals with the method of selection of candidates for admission to post-graduate courses reads as under:
“9. SELECTION OF POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS.
9(1)(1) Students for Post Graduate medical courses shall be selected strictly on the basis of their Inter-se Academic Merit.
b) 50% of the seats in Post Graduate Diploma Course shall be reserved for Medical Officers in the Government service, who have served for at least three years in remote and difficult area. After acquiring the PG Diploma, the Medical Officers shall serve for two more years in remote and/or difficult areas.
In Clause 9(1)(b) after the words “remote and/or difficult areas” and in the proviso to the clause 9(2)(d), the following shall be inserted in terms of Notification published on 16.04.2010.
“As directed by the competent State authorities from time to time.”
9(2) For determining the ‘Academic Merit’ the University/Institution may adopt the following methodology:
(a) On the basis of merit as determined by a Competitive Test’ conducted by the State Government or by the competent authority appointed by the State government or by the university/group of universities in the same state; or
(b) On the basis of merit as determined by a centralised competitive test held at the national level; or
(c) on the basis of the individual cumulative performance at the first, second and third MBBS examinations provided admissions are University wise. Or
(d) combination of (a) and (c)
Provided that wherever Entrance Test for postgraduates admission is held by a state government or a university or any other authorised examining body, the minimum percentage of marks for eligibility for admission to postgraduate medical course shall be 50 percent for general category candidates and 40 percent for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes.
Provided further that in Non-Governmental institutions fifty percent of the total seats shall be filled by the Competent authority notified by the State Government and the remaining fifty percent by the management(s) of the institution on the basis of Inter-se Academic Merit.
The following proviso is added after clause 9(2)(d) in terms of Gazette Notification published on 17.11.2009.
“Further provided that in determining the merit and the entrance test for postgraduate admission weightage in the marks may be given as an incentive at the rate of 10% of the marks obtained for each year in service in remote or difficult areas up to the maximum of 30% of the marks obtained.”
(Emphasis supplied by us)
2. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners-candidates by Mrs. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel, that while the question whether the Government could reserve seats for candidates who had rendered service in notified rural and difficult areas, could be examined in greater detail at the final hearing, the least that this court could do at the interim stage is to direct redrawing of the merit list of the candidates in terms of the Regulation 9 (supra). It was submitted that proviso (iii) to Regulation 9(2) clearly permits grant of weightage in terms of marks by way of an incentive for rural service rendered by candidates at the rate of 10% for each year of service in remote or difficult areas subject to a maximum of 30% of the marks obtained by a candidate. It was contended that even if the State was not competent to separately reserve a specific number of seats for candidates who have served in notified areas the fact that candidates had rendered service in notified rural and difficult areas entitled them to weightage in terms of the said proviso. It was urged that the State Government could be directed to re-draw the merit list of the candidates who appeared in the competitive examination on the basis of the above Regulation giving to the eligible candidates weightage for rural service, if any rendered by them, and granting admission accordingly to those who qualify on that basis. It was urged that while the State Government had already completed one round of counselling for some of the candidates in the merit list, the remaining candidates had yet to be counselled. This may therefore call for cancellation of the earlier counselling and holding of a fresh round of counselling of candidates after a revised merit list drawn in the manner indicated above. Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents-writ petitioners and Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the State, submit that they will have no objection if the merit list is redrawn on the basis of Regulation 9 (supra) after giving to eligible candidates the weigtage for service, if any rendered, in notified rural areas. They have also no objection to the counselling process being done de novo on the basis of the revised merit list so prepared.
3. In the circumstances, we direct that the State Government shall as expeditiously as possible revise and redraw the merit list of the candidates keeping in view Regulation 9 of the Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 and giving to the eligible candidates such weigtage as may be due to them for rendering service in notified rural and/or difficult areas and to grant admission to the candidates found suitable for the same on the basis of such redrawn merit list. This exercise shall be completed before 30th May, 2016, the last date fixed for granting of admission. The entire exercise so conducted shall however remain subject to the outcome of these proceedings.
4. Post after ensuing summer vacation.
———
