1. This is a batch of writ petitions, which presents us with a classic situation, which is, that many times policy matters embarked upon with best of intentions can go awry, during implementation.

1.1. In a sense, this is a second round of litigation, at least, for some of the litigants before us.

2. The core issue, which, we are called upon to consider is: as to whether the official respondents, i.e. respondents 1 to 3, (hereafter collectively referred to as "the State Government") have acted in accordance with the proviso to Regulation 9(IV) of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (hereafter referred to in short PG Regulations of 2000).

2.1. The proviso to Regulation 9(IV) of PG Regulations of 2000 requires, or rather, empowers the State Government to grant weightage-marks, while determining the merit of the candidates, who are either in its service or in the service of public authorities.

2.2. The weightage, which the State Government can accord, as per the said proviso, spans between 10% and 30% of the marks, obtained by a candidate in the National Eligibility- cum-Entrance Test Post Graduate (in short "NEET-PG").

2.3. The weightage so given is inextricably tied-in with the number of years of service rendered by a candidate in a remote and/or difficult areas. The proviso also makes it clear, in no uncertain terms, that the State Government shall have the power to define what are remote and/or difficult areas.

2.4. It is, in fact, as indicated above, the nub of the problem.

3. The assertion made by various petitioners before us, is that in preparing the final merit list, the State Government has accorded weightage, without providing a criteria for identifying remote and/or difficult areas. Therefore, if, the remote and/or difficult areas are not identified, based on a known, reasonable and/or rationale criteria, according to the petitioners, there is every chance that weightage-marks being given to undeserving candidates.

3.1. As a matter of fact, the charge levelled by the petitioners is that weightage has been given to candidates, who are in Government service and have served in areas, which do not qualify as remote and/or difficult areas.

4. Before we proceed further, we may also indicate that the baseline for us, is, the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in State of Uttar Pradesh and Another vs. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, 2016 (9) SCC 749. This was a case, in which, the Supreme Court was dealing with the appeals, which arose out of two separate judgments, rendered by the Allahabad High Court and a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.

4.1. In the course of the adjudication, the Supreme Court was called upon to deliberate on the issue as to whether the norm specified in Regulation 9 of PG Regulations of 2000, for according weightage, was excessive and/or unreasonable. In the context of this issue, the Supreme Court, inter-alia, made the following observations:

(i) That Regulation 9 was a complete code.

(ii) That no State or any Authority could enact any law, much less, issue an executive instruction, which may undermine the procedure for admission to postgraduate medical courses, as envisaged under the Central Legislation and Regulations framed thereunder. The Court, in this behalf, rooted the power of the Parliament in Entry 66 of List I in Schedule VII of the Constitution.

(iii) Regulations had been framed by an expert body, i.e., the fourth respondent [the Medical Council of India (in short, MCI)] based on the past experience. In other words, the Court granted its seal of approval to the proviso, which incentivised rendering of service by Doctors in the notified remote and/or difficult areas of the State.

(iv) Lastly, the proviso to clause (IV) of Regulation 9 passed the test of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it was held to have been engrafted in the Regulation in the larger public i