Back
2005 Supreme(Mad) 1502
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. MURUGESAN
Dr.M.Ashiq Nihmathullah - Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary Health Department & Others - Respondents
W.P.Nos.23607, 23608, 23591, 23592, 24345, 24742 & 25192/2005 and W.P.M.P.Nos.27584, 25771, 25772, 25756, 25757, 26585, 27099 and W.P.M.P.No.1838/2005
Decided On : 08 September 2005
The judgment establishes the legality of awarding marks for rural service to in-service candidates for admission to Higher Speciality Courses, emphasizing the State's power to identify the source of admission and the distinction between reservation and weightage of service.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Admission to Higher Speciality Course - The Constitution of India, Article 226 - Clauses 50, 51, 63 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the constitutionality of awarding marks for rural service to in-service candidates for admission to Higher Speciality Courses in Medicine. It references various clauses of the prospectus, along with relevant judgments of the Supreme Court and the power of the State Government to identify the source of admission. The court's decision is influenced by the interpretation of Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution, as well as the distinction between reservation and weightage of service to in-service candidates.
Fact of the Case:
The court was called upon to decide the constitutionality of awarding marks for rural service to in-service candidates for admission to Higher Speciality Courses in Medicine.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the weightage of one mark for each year of service to in-service candidates serving in rural areas is justified and does not amount to reservation. It emphasized the State's power to identify the source of admission and upheld the award of marks as a means to encourage doctors to serve in rural areas.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the constitutionality of awarding marks for rural service, the distinction between reservation and weightage of service, and the potential discrimination among in-service candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution, the distinction between reservation and weightage of service to in-service candidates, and the State's power to identify the source of admission.
Final Decision: All the Writ Petitions failed and were dismissed by the court.
(Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Declaration declaring Clauses 50,51 and 63 of the prospectus for admission to 3 years Higher Speciality Course in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges for the period of 2005-2006 as unconstitutional and strike down the same.)
In all these writ petitions, this Court is called upon to decide as to whether the award of one mark for every year of Rural service under the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services or Director of Public Health Controlled Institutions up to a maximum of 10 marks to in-service candidates for consideration of their admissions to Higher Speciality Courses in Medicine is justified. The relevant clauses in the Prospectus are as follows:
50) The merit list for each discipline of the Higher Speciality Course will be prepared by computing the entrance examination marks and service marks which will be calculated to a maximum of 100 (Entrance Mark 90 + Service Mark 10). Rural services marks will be added to the total aggregate marks of the service candidates.
51)a) The Individual Mark (Service/Non-service) is calculated by computing the marks secured by the candidate in the Entrance Examination and Service Marks of one mark for each year after completion of the P.G. Degree which is calculated from the last date of the month of passing examination (E.g. If a candidate scores 50 marks out 90 marks in Entrance examination and completed two years after P.G. Degree on the date of Entrance Examination, his/her total Aggregate Marks Will be 50+2=52).
b) Service Candidates will be awarded one mark for every year of Rural service under the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services or Director of Public Health Controlled Institutions up to a maximum of 10 marks. These rural service marks as on the date of Entrance Examination will be added to the Total aggregate marks while preparing the Merit list. Rural service marks will be Calculated based on the length of service rendered in Primary Health Centres alone.
63) a) The selection will be made by counseling based only on merit and no communal reservation will be followed. 50% of the seats will be made available as Open Competition for selection among both service/non-service candidates 50% of the seats will be made available only for Service candidates. In case of odd number seat remaining vacant that seat shall be selected as per merit among both Service and Non-service candidates put together. 50% of seats in each college are reserved for service candidates whether they are selected under open or service quota.
b) If there are non-service candidates opting for any Higher Speciality course, the same will be allotted to service candidates
2. In exercise of powers under Article 162 of the Constitution, the State Government issue Government Orders, which are normally known as policy Government Orders each year, prescribing eligibility norms, educational qualifications, minimum age requirements, source of admission etc., apart from prescribing the communal rule of reservation.
3. The State is bound to follow the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India insofar as the eligibility, educational qualifications, age restrictions, number of seats to be filled in and also the allotment of candidates only to the colleges recognized by the Medical Council of India approved by the State Government and affiliated by Universities. The State is also bound to follow communal reservation for under and Post Graduate Medical Courses. The prescription of higher standard for admission to courses by the State is also recognized by Courts.
4. The power of the State Government to identify the source of admission, useful reference could be made to the following judgments of the Supreme Court.
1) CHITRALEKHA VS STATE OF MYSORE (A.I.R. 1964 SC 1823); 2) P. RAJENDRAN VS STATE OF MADRAS (A.I.R. 1968 SC 1012); 3) CHITRA GHOSH VS UNION OF INDIA (A.I.R. 1970 SC 35) and 4) K.P. GANGULY V
