JUDGMENT :

AKULA VENKATA SESHA SAI, J.

1. Heard Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri K. Ramamohan, learned Counsel on record for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health for respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5, Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2 and Sri S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3-Medical Council of India.

2. This writ petition calls in question the action of respondent No. 1-State Government in not providing incentive weightage of marks for in-service candidates with continuous regular service of 6 years, as provided to any in-service candidates working in tribal/rural areas, and the petitioners herein also pray for a further declaration to the effect that they are entitled for incentive weightage of marks for 6 years of continuous regular service as provided to in-service candidates working in tribal/rural areas.

3. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners that as per Clause 9(iv) of the Medical Council of India Regulations, 2000, it is incumbent on the part of the State Government/competent authority to define 'remote and difficult areas', and in the instant case, there is no such exercise undertaken by the respondents, and instead, by way of amendments notified vide G.O. Ms. No. 29, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 22.3.2018, the State Government defined 'tribal areas and rural areas' only. It is further contended that the petitioners herein, who are governed by the Andhra Pradesh Insurance Medical Services, are working in E.S.I. Medical Dispensaries located in industrial areas of Chittoor and Proddatur, and having regard to the place of their work, pollution which they suffer and industrial unrest which they experience, sometimes, the said places are required to be treated as 'difficult areas' though not 'remote areas'. It is further contended that had the Government defined 'difficult areas', as stipulated in Clause 9(iv) of the Medical Council of India Regulations, the petitioners herein would have got an opportunity to secure seats in post-graduation courses. It is further contended that once the incentive is given to in-service candidates, it is a 'class' by itself, as such, there cannot be any sub-classification in the said class and the said action offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that when sub-rule (2)(c) of Rule 3 is not deleted, the benefit of in-service quota should have been extended to the petitioners herein also. In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on a decision in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, (2016) 9 SCC 749.

4. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader, so also the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2-N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, that in the absence of any right, the petitioners herein are not entitled for indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended by the learned Advocates that the respondent-authorities are acting strictly in accordance with law.

The learned Government Pleader seeks to justify the case of the State Government by contending that, but for variation in nomenclature of the terms viz., remote and difficult areas, the respondents are proceeding strictly as per Clause 9(iv) of the Medical Council of India Regulations, 2000 by bringing amendments to the Andhra Pradesh Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 1997. In elaboration, it is further maintained that the terms viz., tribal and rural areas, as defined and notified vide G.O. Ms. No. 29, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 22.3.2018, are analogous, equivalent and akin to the 'difficult and remote areas', as stipulated in the Medical Council of India Regulations, 2000, and