IMPORTANT POINTS
Once a person joins as PMHS doctor he becomes eligible for the benefit under Regulation 9(iv).
High Court cannot transgress beyond scope of writ petition.

Headnote:(a) Medical education – Admission to post graduate courses in Central Universities like AMU and BHU – Institutional reservation – Admission on basis of NEET – 50% of the seats on merit on all India basis and 50% on merit drawn on State-wise basis – Provision for weightage to in service doctors who have worked in remote or difficult areas within the State merit list – Regulation 9(iv), MCI Regulations, 2000 to those doctors – 50% institutional reservation in AMU and BHU not challenged before High Court – High Court giving directions to the contrary even when AMU and BHU and selected candidates were not before it – Not sustainable – Article 226, Constitution of India. (Para 10, 12)
       2016 (8) SCALE 16; (2003) 11 SCC 146; (2002) 1 SCC 428 – Relied upon
       (b) MCI Regulations 2000 – Regulation 9(iv) – Admission to post graduate medical course – Weightage to doctors serving in remote and difficult areas – 10% weightage per year up to a ceiling of 30% – State restricting benefit to doctors obtaining MBBS degree from institutions within the State – Weightage is only to PMHS doctors – Once a person joins as PMHS doctor he becomes eligible for the benefit – The institution from where he graduated becomes immaterial – Impugned judgment not sustainable. (Para 14, 15, 16)
       2016 (8) SCALE 16 – Referred
       (c) Constitution of India – Article 226 – High Court cannot transgress beyond scope of writ petition. (Para 17)
       Facts of the case:
       Two questions arise for decision in these cases:
       (i) Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the institutional preference in the Aligarh Muslim University (for short “AMU”) and Banaras Hindu University (for short “BHU”) and further directing that the post-graduate seats in these institutions shall be filled up only from those students who have passed MBBS from Institutions, Universities and Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh;
       (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a direction that the benefit of service rendered in remote/difficult areas should be given only to those doctors of the Provincial Medical Health Services (for short “the PMHS”), who have cleared MBBS examination from a college within the State of U.P.
       Finding of the Court:
       Once a person joins as PMHS doctor he becomes eligible for the benefit under Regulation 9(iv).
       Result: All appeals and applications disposed of.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

Applications for permission to file special leave petitions are allowed. Applications for impleadment/intervention are also allowed.

2. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

3. By this order we are disposing of all the aforesaid civil appeals as well as interlocutory application(s) relating to the State of Uttar Pradesh in Writ Petition (C) No. 76 of 2015. Keeping in view the urgent nature of the dispute, the appeals and the interlocutory application (s) relating to the State of Uttar Pradesh in the Writ Petition (C) No.76 of 2015 are taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.

4. Two questions arise for decision in these cases:

(i) Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the institutional preference in the Aligarh Muslim University (for short “AMU”) and Banaras Hindu University (for short “BHU”) and further directing that the post-graduate seats in these institutions shall be filled up only from those students who have passed MBBS from Institutions, Universities and Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh;

(ii) Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a direction that the benefit of service rendered in remote/difficult areas should be given only to those doctors of the Provincial Medical Health Services (for short “the PMHS”), who have cleared MBBS examination from a college within the State of U.P.

5. The impugned order has been challenged by the appellants, some of whom are persons who have been admitted in AMU and BHU and whose admissions are now sought to be cancelled on the basis of the impugned order. Some of the appeals have been filed by in service doctors who have graduated from outside the State of U.P. Appeals have also been filed by the AMU and the BHU.

6. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 17183 of 2017 was filed by certain doctors in which their only claim was that the benefit of Regulation 9(iv) of the Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2000 Regulations”) was only available to those doctors serving in the Uttar Pradesh PMHS (hereinafter referred to as “in service doctors”), who had passed their MBBS examination from a university/institution situate within the State of Uttar Pradesh. No other issue was raised in this writ petition.

7. This matter was taken up by the High Court on 15.05.2017 and in its order dated 15.05.2017, the High Court made reference to various circulars issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh from time to time and the Court raised certain queries in this order. Though the High Court in the writ petition was only concerned with one issue i.e. whether in service doctors of PMHS cadre, who had obtained their MBBS degree from outside the State of U.P. were entitled to benefit of Regulation 9(iv) of the 2000 Regulations, the High Court framed a number of questions pertaining to admission to post-graduate courses in medical colleges and asked the Chief Secretary to file a reply to the same. The High Court, without any material before it, also raked up the issue with regard to admissions to AMU and BHU and raised a query whether students, who had passed their MBBS/BDS final examination from colleges within the State of U.P. were entitled for admission to AMU and BHU on the basis of their merit in the competitive examination.

8. The Chief Secretary filed an affidavit stating that the medical education is governed by the Medical Council of India (for short “the MCI”), which is a statutory body set up under the Medical Council of India Act, 1956. Reference was made to Rule 9(iv) of the 2000 Regulations, which reads as follows:

“9. Procedure for Selection of Candidate for Post Graduate Courses shall be as follows:-

(i) xxx xxx xxx

(ii) xxx xxx xxx

(iii) xxx xxx xxx

(iv) The reservation of seats in Medical Colleges/Institutions for respective categories shall be as per applicable laws prevailing in States/Un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 582

IMPORTANT POINTSOnce a person joins as PMHS doctor he becomes eligible for the benefit under Regulation 9(iv).High Court cannot transgress beyond scope of writ petition.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINTS
Once a person joins as PMHS doctor he becomes eligible for the benefit under Regulation 9(iv).
High Court cannot transgress beyond scope of writ petition.