Point of Law: Proviso under Regulation 9(4) of the Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 does not confer a right on Medical Officers under the service of Government/Public Authorities to get weightage in the marks as incentive for service in remote and/or difficult areas, for the purpose of admission to Postgraduate Medical Courses.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner, who holds MBBS Degree and who is working as Assistant Surgeon in the Department of Health Services under the Government of Kerala, seeks to direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner and other in-service candidates employed as Medical Officers in the Government service for admission for Postgraduate Medical Courses for the academic year 2021-22, in the general merit seats granting them the incentive as provided in the proviso to Regulation 9(4) of MCI Regulations, 2000 read with Ext.P4. The petitioner also seeks to declare that Ext.P7 to the extent it does not provide for incentive for in-service Medical Officers in the service of the Government as laid down in the proviso to Regulation 9(4) of the MCI Regulations for seeking admission in the general merit seats along with the general merit candidates is illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 254 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to the incentive provided under Regulation 9(4) of the Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations 2000, grantable to service in remote and/or difficult areas or rural areas. The petitioner states that Regulation 9(4) of the Regulations, 2000 in its proviso, mandates that in making selection of students for Postgraduate Medical Courses, Medical Officers, who are in the service of the Government or other Public Authority, are entitled to be given weightage as an incentive up to 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service in remote and/or difficult areas or rural areas up to maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET).

3. The petitioner contends that grant of weightage/incentive under Regulation 9 is distinct from and in addition to the reservation for admission provided under State Quota seats for in-service candidates. Incentive under Regulation 9 would apply to all Medical Officers, who are in service of Government/Public Authority, in the matter of admission to PG Medical Courses both under All India Quota and under State Quota. In pursuance of Regulation 9 of the Regulations, 2000, the Government of Kerala issued Ext.P4 Government Order dated 12.04.2018 providing that Medical Officers who work in difficult and remote areas will receive an incentive of 10% margin obtained for each year of service in remote and difficult area and 5% of marks obtained for each year of service in rural area (not classified as difficult area) subject to a maximum of 30%.

4. In the Prospectus for the academic year 2019-20, the respondents provided 10% marks by way of incentive. Surprisingly, in Ext.P7 Prospectus for admission to the Postgraduate Medical Courses for the academic year 2021-2022, though the Government provided for 10% quota for in-service Medical Officers, the provision for incentive to Medical Officers in the service of the Government for working in difficult rural areas and rural areas, is not included. The petitioner states that the said omission in Ext.P7 runs counter to the Medical Council of India Regulations and Ext.P4 Government Order. Ext.P4 Government Order has not been withdrawn or cancelled.

5. The Government published a rank list of candidates aspiring for admission under in-service quota, as per Ext.P8 Circular dated 25.01.2022. In the rank list, the petitioner is included among the category of Medical Officers under the column “Yet to declare probation” at Serial No.14. The petitioner contends that on the basis of the inclusion of the petitioner in Ext.P8 rank list, he should be considered for admission for Postgraduate Medical Course granting him the benefit of the incentive provided under the Proviso to Regulation 9(4) of the Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000.

6. The 1st respondent opposed the writ petition filing a Statement. The 1st respondent stated that the contention of the petitioner that the Proviso to Regulation 9 of MCI Regulations, 2000 w