IMPORTANT POINT
State is first required to identify remote and/or difficult areas, and then analyse the lack of availability of Doctors at these locations, not the other way round.

Headnote:(a) MCI Regulations 2000 – Regulation 9(IV) – Remote and/or difficult areas – Identification – Notification dated 05.05.2017 – State first identifying locations where Doctors are reluctant to be posted and then classifying them as remote or difficult areas – Approach flawed – State is first required to identify remote and/or difficult areas, and then analyse the lack of availability of Doctors at these locations – 60% of CHC and 54% of PHC declared remote and/or difficult areas in a developed State like Haryana – Not acceptable – Guidelines of Supreme Court in D.S. Chauhan requiring identification based on general criteria – State identifying the areas only for admission to medical courses – Committee submitting report in one day and was accepted immediately – Hot haste vitiating notification. (Para 7, 8, 9, 13)
       (2016) 9 SCC 749 – Relied upon
       (b) MCI Regulations 2000 – Regulation 9(IV), Proviso – An enabling provision giving discretion to the State for identifying remote/difficult areas – Any discretionary power has to be exercised fairly, reasonably and for the purpose for which the power has been conferred – Instantly, State issuing notification based on no data, formulating it in a day, and implementing it before publication in the Gazette, after publication of the NEET – Cannot be approved. (Para 15)
       Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – State notifying counselling on 22.05.2017 and 23.05.2017 – In disobedience of interim order dated 16.05.2017 – Fit case for contempt proceeding – Conduct of officials deprecated. (Para 16)
       Facts of the case:
       The notification dated 05.05.2017, issued by the State of Haryana, notifying remote and/or difficult areas in the State for grant of weightage in marks obtained in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to various postgraduate Medical/Dental courses under Regulation 9(IV) of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”), has been set aside by the High Court, with directions for fresh counselling.
       Finding of the Court:
       The State of Haryana, if it wishes to give weightage for admission in postgraduate courses under the proviso to Regulation 9 (IV), it must come out with a fresh notification identifying remote and/or difficult areas as discussed in the present order, within one week from today and to facilitate the same, the last date for admission is extended to 10th of June, 2017.
       Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Navin Sinha, J.

Leave granted.

2. The three appeals arise from a common order dated 09.05.2007 allowing the writ petitions heard analogous. The notification dated 05.05.2017, issued by the State of Haryana, notifying remote and/or difficult areas in the State for grant of weightage in marks obtained in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to various postgraduate Medical/Dental courses under Regulation 9(IV) of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”), has been set aside, with directions for fresh counselling.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Subramanian Prasad and Shri Mahabir Singh, and Learned Counsel Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, on behalf of the appellants, submit that the notification dated 05.05.2017 was not issued in haste. The policy decision was taken by a committee headed by the Director General Health Services. The Committee took into consideration an earlier notification of 21.09.2005 identifying difficult rural areas, then applied four specified criteria to identify remote and/or difficult areas from amongst them, based on unwillingness of Doctors to be posted and consequent vacancies at these places which were affecting health care. These four criteria were,

(a) Health institutions not preferred by Doctors for posting,

(b) CHCs and PHCs falling in the areas beyond 10 kilometers from the municipal limits,

(d) PHCs/CHCs falling in less developed areas of Mewat and Siwalik areas. The notification was in consonance with the directions in State of U.P. versus Dinesh Singh Chauhan, (2016) 9 SCC 749, to cover up the demand for basic health care, commensurate facilities and meet the inertia amongst young Doctors to go to such areas thus serving a dual purpose.

4. Reliance was further placed on the National Rural Health Statistics, 2014-2015 regarding the large number of vacancies in the State of Haryana. No malafides had been alleged. The State was best suited to decide policy matters for identification of remote and/or difficult areas, the need for doctors in such areas and the manner in which it was to be filled up by offering incentives. The notification is neither arbitrary or irrational. The 1st round of counselling has already been held and admissions taken. Any interference at this stage by annulling the earlier counselling also, will only create more complications and delay the process of admissions.

5. Senior Counsel Ms. Indu Malhotra and Senior Counsel Shri Vikaramjeet Banerjee, appearing for the respondents submitted that the High Court has rightly held that the notification was issued in hot haste, and only after the result of the NEET had been published. It was acted upon even before its publication in the gazette. The subsequent publication will not cure the illegality. The Committee was constituted on 04.05.2017. The issuance of the impugned notification the very next day covering 115 Community Health Centers and 498 Primary Health Centers is itself evidence of the haste with which the decision was taken. The criteria adopted for identifying remote and/or difficult areas was arbitrary, based on no relevant material, and had no co-relation to the object and purpose of Regulation 9(IV). Unwillingness of Doctors to join posting at specified locations not to their liking, cannot be the criterion for such identification. The notification dated 21.09.2005 sought to be relied upon, pertained to a general transfer policy. In any event, it had no relevance in the year 2017 because of developments that have taken place in the State thereafter. The High Court has rightly held that notifying places as remote and/or difficult in the vicinity of the municipal committees/councils was not sustainable. The identification of the areas could not be for the purpose of medical admission only as held in D.S. Chauhan (supra). Counselling has been held subs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 570

IMPORTANT POINTState is first required to identify remote and/or difficult areas, and then analyse the lack of availability of Doctors at these locations, not the other way round.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
State is first required to identify remote and/or difficult areas, and then analyse the lack of availability of Doctors at these locations, not the other way round.