Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
DR. ANUPAM MITRA — Appellant
Vs.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondents
W.P.A. No. 5592 of 2020, I.A. No. Can 1 of 2020 (Old No. Can 3346 of 2020)
Decided On : 04-01-2022
Incentive Marks - Medical Admission - Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations 2000 - Clause 9 (2) (d)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a doctor, sought incentive marks for admission to MD/MS/Post Graduate Diploma Courses based on his service in a remote area. The court was asked to consider his eligibility for the admission test and the 30% incentive as per the Regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to prove his eligibility for incentive marks as he did not meet the criteria specified in the Notification dated February 26, 2020. The court dismissed the writ petition and disposed of the case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's eligibility for incentive marks, the interpretation of the Regulations, and the applicability of the Notification to the petitioner's service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner did not fulfill the mandatory yardsticks for entitlement to the benefit conferred by the Notification. The petitioner's delay in approaching the court was insufficient to establish a just cause, and his chance of admission was not supported by evidence.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the case was disposed of without costs.
JUDGMENT :
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
1. The petitioner did his MBBS from the Burdwan University in the year 2003 and was registered with the West Bengal Medical Council. Thereafter, allegedly, the petitioner has been practising medicine as a General Duty Medical Officer at the Pancagram Rural Hospital under Diamond Harbour- I Block since November 6, 2012 for over seven years. The petitioner terms the area of his work as a "remote area."
2. The petitioner took the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test - Post Graduate 2020 (in short, "the NEET-PG") and secured a rank of 25296, with a score of 59l7 out of 1200 and a state wise combined rank of 1145.
3. Reliance is placed on Clause 9 (2) (d) of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations 2000 (in short, "the Regulations") the proviso to which, after its amendment on November 17, 2009, reads:
4. Upon giving such weightage, the petitioner argues, his score would stand at 597 plus 30%, which comes to (579+179.1) = 776.1 and his ranking in the state panel would be 215.
5. In terms of a notification dated February 26, 2020, issued by the Special Secretary to the Government of West Bengal under the proviso to Clause 9 (4) of the Regulations, the petitioner gave a representation, first on March 16, 2020 and again, by an email dated March 28, 2020 to the Principal Secretary, requesting for being granted such incentive marks as weightage allowable for an in-service doctor.
6. The second round of counselling (allotment process) stared and the final list for round 2 publication and seat matrix was scheduled on June 23, 2020 and the results for allotment in round 2 were to be published on June 30, 2020. Since the petitioner's request for being considered as an eligible candidate and to come within the zone of consideration for counselling by virtue of the 30% incentive had not yet been considered, the present writ petition was filed on June 19, 2020.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been in service in a State Government hospital as a doctor in a remote area for above seven years and is, thus, eligible to take the admission test for the MD/MS/Post Graduate Diploma Courses upon the improvement of his rank on the 30% incentive being given, in terms of Clause 9 (2) (d) of the Regulations.
8. The West Bengal Medical Council ("WBMC" for short), as Respondent No. 7 in the writ petition and the Medical Council of India ("MCI" in short), being Respondent No. 8, who are the state medical council and the parent body in the country respectively, contested the writ petition.
9. All the contesting parties have filed written notes of arguments.
10. As per the contention of Respondent No. 7, the writ petition has become infructuous since the Post Graduate Medical Education in 2020 Session has already started, with successful candidates participating in different post graduate courses and having completed a "good portion" of their study, thus excluding any scope of entry of any student by disturbing the entire curriculum. For the proposition no further relief can be granted in an infructuous writ petition, learned counsel cites 2000 (2) SCC 439.
11. Respondent No. 7 further argues that the petitioner failed to substantiate his case on merits and relies, in this context, on 2010 (10) SCC 677, 1988 (4) SCC 534 (Bharat Singh vs. State of Haryana).
12. It is denied that the petitioner has worked at a remote and/or difficult area of the stage, as fixed by the State Government in their discretion as per notification dated February 26, 2020. In such context, Respondent No. 7 cites 2016 (9) SCC 749 (State of U.P. vs. Dinesh Singh).
13. The writ petitioner, it is argued, could not substantiate his
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
