1. In-service doctors challenge post-graduate medical course counselling, seeking weightage for service in remote and difficult areas under Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 891
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhushan and Deepak Gupta, JJ.
Dr. Narendra Soni & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 403 of 2017
Decided On : 08-06-2017
Important Points
The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Regulation 9(VII) and held that the State's failure to issue a fresh list of difficult and/or remote areas violated the regulation, leading to the deprivation of statutory weightage for the petitioners.
Subject
Administrative Law - Education Law
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.32, Art.14
POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS: Reg.9, Reg.9(vii), Reg.9(iv)
POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS: Reg.9, Reg.9(vii), Reg.9(iv)
Headnote
The petitioners, in-service doctors, sought weightage for admission in Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses under Regulation 9 of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. The State of Haryana failed to issue a fresh list of difficult and/or remote areas as directed by the court, leading to the petitioners being deprived of their statutory weightage. The court held that the State's inaction in issuing the list violated the mandatory provisions of Regulation 9(VII) and directed a fresh counselling for 50% quota in Post Graduate Diploma Courses based on NEET merit for candidates with No Objection Certificate from the State of Haryana.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, in-service doctors, sought weightage for admission in Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses under Regulation 9 of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. The State of Haryana failed to issue a fresh list of difficult and/or remote areas as directed by the court, leading to the petitioners being deprived of their statutory weightage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State's inaction in issuing the list violated the mandatory provisions of Regulation 9(VII) and directed a fresh counselling for 50% quota in Post Graduate Diploma Courses based on NEET merit for candidates with No Objection Certificate from the State of Haryana.
Issues: The issues revolved around the State's failure to issue a fresh list of difficult and/or remote areas as directed by the court, leading to the petitioners being deprived of their statutory weightage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State's inaction in issuing the list violated the mandatory provisions of Regulation 9(VII) and directed a fresh counselling for 50% quota in Post Graduate Diploma Courses based on NEET merit for candidates with No Objection Certificate from the State of Haryana.
Final Decision: The court directed a fresh counselling for 50% quota in Post Graduate Diploma Courses based on NEET merit for candidates with No Objection Certificate from the State of Haryana.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ms. Indu Malhotra, Shubrashu P., Tanvir Nayar
For the Respondents: Dr. Monika Gusain
For the MCI : Gaurav Sharma, Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia, Ms. Vara Gaur
For the Petitioners: Ms. Indu Malhotra, Shubrashu P., Tanvir Nayar
For the Respondents: Dr. Monika Gusain
For the MCI : Gaurav Sharma, Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia, Ms. Vara Gaur
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners assert entitlement to statutory weightage for remote service; State cites lack of time to notify areas; MCI argues weightage is an enabling provision. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 )
3. Weightage for degree courses is discretionary, but the 50% reservation for diploma courses for remote-area service is mandatory and cannot be ignored due to state inaction. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. When mandatory reservation for remote service is applicable but no area list is notified, seats shall be filled by merit among eligible in-service candidates. (Para 14 )
5. Degree course admissions upheld; 50% diploma seats to be filled via fresh counselling based on NEET merit among in-service candidates with NOCs. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. Is the provision for granting weightage to in-service doctors for service in remote areas mandatory?
Under Regulation 9(IV), weightage for post-graduate courses is an enabling provision, meaning the State has the discretion to decide whether to grant such weightage. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 )
7. Is the reservation of 50% seats in Post Graduate Diploma Courses for in-service doctors mandatory?
Yes, Regulation 9(VII) mandates the reservation of 50% of seats in Post Graduate Diploma Courses for medical officers in government service who have served at least three years in remote or difficult areas. (Para 10 , 13 )
8. How are seats filled when mandatory reservation exists but the State fails to notify the list of eligible areas?
The court held that such seats should be filled based on the inter se merit of in-service doctors who have applied and obtained a No Objection Certificate from the State. (Para 14 , 15 )
ORDER :
Heard Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Dr. Monika Gusain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State and Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Medical Council of India.
2. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, we finally dispose of the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
3. The petitioners in the instant writ petition have made the following prayers:
a. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the counselling process for MD/MS/PG Diploma held by the Registrar, Pt. B.D. Sharma, University of Health Science, Rohtak on 30.5.17 and 31.5.17 as unconstitutional being ultra vires Articles 14 of the Constitution of India.
b. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent State Authorities to issue a notification notifying the remote and/or difficult areas in terms of POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS , 2000 framed by the Medical Council of India and grant applicable weightage in marks while considering the candidature of the Petitioners for admission for MD/MS/PG Diploma in the State of Haryana.
c. Issue Rule nisi in terms of the prayers above.
d. Pass such other and further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
4. The petitioners before us are in-service doctors who have applied for admission in Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses. The petitioners claimed that having rendered service in remote and/or difficult areas they are entitled for the weightage as admissible under Regulation 9 of the POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS , 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2000 Regulation’). It is submitted that earlier a list for remote and difficult areas was issued by the State of Haryana on 05.05.2017, which was challenged before the High Court by filing a writ petition. The writ petition was allowed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court against which order the State came in the SLP, which after granting leave, was decided by this Court on 25.05.2017. This Court affirmed the order of the High Court. However, in paragraph 17 of the aforesaid order, the following observations were made:
"17. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the State of Haryana, if it wishes to give weightage for admission in post graduate 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."
5. Subsequent to the aforesaid order dated 25.05.2017, the petitioners' grievance is that no list for remote and difficult areas was drawn by the State and hurriedly a counselling was conducted information of which was only given to them by SMS on 30.05.2017, in the night. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first counselling was completed on 31.05.2017, whereas second counselling for admissions in Post Graduate Courses was conducted on 06.06.2017 and 07.06.2017. It is submitted that Regulation 9(IV) of the 2000 Regulation envisages a weightage to those in-service doctors who have rendered their services in difficult and/or remote areas, and the petitioners who have served in difficult and/or remote areas are being deprived of their statutory weightage due to inaction on the part of the State. It is submitted that there was no reason after the order of this Court for not issuing a fresh list of difficult and/or remote areas. The State chooses not to issue a list and proceeded to complete the admission on Post Graduate Courses without giving weightage to any candidate of difficult and/or remote areas. It is further submitted that insofar as seats in Post Graduate Diploma Courses are concerned, it was the mandatory requirement of filling of the 50% of such s
