Back
2020 Supreme(Cal) 629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
Goutam Nemo - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (A) No. 5460 of 2020, 5821 of 2020, 5822 of 2020; Interlocutory Application (Can) No. 1 of 2020
Decided On : 10-11-2020
Subir Sanyal, Advocate, Amiya Kumar Dutta, Advocate, Swadesh Priya Ghosh, Advocate, Kishore Datta, Advocate, Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Advocate, Supratic Roy, Advocate, Indranil Roy, Advocate, Sunit Kumar Roy, Advocate
The State Government has the power to define remote and difficult areas and grant incentives as per the 2000 Regulations for admission into Post Graduate Courses.
Headnote:
Notification - Medical Practitioners - Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 - [9(IV)] - The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging a notification granting weightage to in-service doctors serving in rural or remote areas for admission into Post Graduate Courses. The court held that the State Government had the power to define remote and difficult areas and grant incentives as per the 2000 Regulations. The court found no arbitrariness in the classification and upheld the validity of the notification and the consequential memorandum.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, medical practitioners employed by the Government of West Bengal, challenged a notification granting weightage to in-service doctors serving in rural or remote areas for admission into Post Graduate Courses. They argued that the classification of areas as 'rural' or 'remote and/or difficult' was arbitrary and discriminatory, causing prejudice to them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Government had the power to define remote and difficult areas and grant incentives as per the 2000 Regulations. It held that the classification was within the purview of the regulations and did not exhibit any arbitrariness. The court dismissed the writ petitions and disposed of related applications accordingly.
Issues: The primary issue was the validity of the notification and the consequential memorandum granting weightage to in-service doctors serving in rural or remote areas for admission into Post Graduate Courses. The court also addressed the delay in filing the writ petitions, non-joinder of beneficiaries, and the argument of waiver/acquiescence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State Government had the power to define remote and difficult areas and grant incentives as per the 2000 Regulations. It found no arbitrariness in the classification and upheld the validity of the notification and the consequential memorandum. The court also rejected the arguments of delay, non-joinder of beneficiaries, and waiver/acquiescence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the notification and the consequential memorandum. It also disposed of related applications accordingly and ordered no costs to be paid by either party.
JUDGMENT
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - Apart from advancing oral arguments, written notes of arguments have been filed by both sides. This court records its appreciation of the precision and specificity of such notes.
2. These matters are heard together in view of the identity of causes of action. The petitioner in each of the three writ petitions is a medical practitioner, holding an MBBS degree and in employment of the Government West Bengal, Department of Health and Family Welfare. They belong to the cadre of West Bengal Health Service.
3. The primary challenge in the writ petitions is against a Notification dated February 26, 2020, issued by the Special Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Health and Family Welfare Department in terms of the proviso to Regulation 9(IV) of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2000 Regulations") issued by the Medical Council of India (MCI) whereby it was notified on behalf of the Governor that from the academic session 2020 onwards, for selection of candidates/admission in Post Graduate Courses, weightage will be given to the in-service Doctors, who are the Officers of the West Bengal Health Service/West Bengal Public Health-cumAdministrative Service/West Bengal Medical Education Service, serving in rural areas or remote and/or difficult areas. The impugned Notification also provided for the scheme of incentives and the meaning of the terms "Rural Areas" and "Remote and/or Difficult Areas". A consequential Memorandum dated March 4, 2020, clarifying that in the light of recent judicial pronouncements there shall be no reservation of seats for in-service Government Doctors for admission into Post Graduate Degree Courses from the academic session 2020; however, for admission into Post Graduate Diploma courses, the existing provisions/dispensation relating to reservation of seats for in-service Government Doctors shall continue to operate in terms of No.HF/O/MERT/433/W-43/13 dated April 18, 2013, is also under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in all the cases argues that the classification of certain regions into "Rural Areas" and "Remote and/or Difficult Areas" under the Notification dated February 26, 2020 is arbitrary, discriminatory and baseless. It is alleged that it causes prejudice to the petitioners, as contenders for weightage of marks for in-service Doctors on the basis of such classification.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the following judgments:
(i) State of Haryana and another vs. Narendra Soni and others, (2017) 14 SCC 642 ;
(ii) Dr. Amit Bagra and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors,MANU/SCOR/52999/2017;
(iii) Medical Council of India vs. State of Karnataka and others, (1998) 6 SCC 131 ;
(iv) Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another vs. State of M.P. and others, (1999) 7 SCC 120 ;
(v) State of Kerala vs. Kumari T.P. Roshana and another, (1979) 1 SCC 572 ;
(vi) Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research & Anr. vs. A.P. Wasan & Ors, (2003) 2 JT 431 ;
(vii) Swapan Kumar Maity vs. South Eastern Railways & Ors,2007 4 CHN 616 (DB);
(viii) Asha vs. PT. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and others, (2012) 7 SCC 389 ;
(ix) Md. Babul Aktar and Ors. Vs. Md. Nazir Hossain and Ors,MANU/WB/2534/2019 (DB).
6. State of Haryana (supra) and Dr. Amit Bagra (supra) are cited to indicate the criteria defining "remote and difficult areas", indicated by the Supreme Court.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Medical Council of India vs. State of Karnataka (supra) and Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra) lay down the law that MCI Regulations, framed with prior approval of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act are mandatory and binding, since those are relatable to the quality of the medical professionals.
8. By placing reliance on Regulation 9(IV) of the 2000 Regulations, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the same provides for t
