2020 Supreme(P&H) 552

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jaswant Singh, Sant Parkash, JJ.
Dr. Varun Garg & Anr.- Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No.6070 of 2020(O&M)
Decided On : 30-06-2020

The State has no authority to enact any law much less by executive instructions that may undermine the procedure for admission to postgraduate medical courses enunciated by the Central Legislation and regulations framed there under being a subject falling within Schedule VII List I Entry 66 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

JUDGEMENT : JASWANT SINGH, J. Hearing conducted through Video Conferencing. 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the Order dated 26.9.2019 (P-8) vide which the State Government has rejected the demand of the Rural Medical Officers (hereinafter referred to as RMO’s) to be considered equivalent to PCMS (Punjab Civil Medical Service) doctors for the purpose of awarding 30% marks as incentive in Post-Graduate Admissions, in terms of Regulation 9 (IV) of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 of the MCI. Further the petitioners are seeking quashing of the Notification dated 29.3.2019 (P-4) to the extent the notification envisages the grant of incentives of 30% of total marks obtained in NEET PG examination only to In-service PCMS/PCMS (Dental) doctors. Still further, the prayer made by the petitioners is to direct the respondents to conduct admissions to the Postgraduate Degree courses in the State by granting incentive marks to Rural Medical Officers serving in remote and difficult areas.

Fact of the Case:

The RMO’s were appointed by the Zila Parishads on contractual basis. The services of the RMO’s were later on regularised by the Zila Parishads. The petitioners had also joined the services in Zila Parishads on contractual basis. Petitioners vide appointment letter (Annexure P-1) were inducted in regular service of Zila Parishads. The services of the RMO’s are governed by the Punjab Panchayati Raj Rural Medical (Group-A) Service Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 2011 rules). A bare perusal of the 2011 rules makes it evident that the service of the RMO’s is at District level and they do not form part of Government Service and are employees of the Zila Parishads.

Finding of the Court:

The action of the State Government in restricting the benefit of incentives under the proviso to Regulation 9 (IV) of the MCI Regulations, 2000 to PCMS/PCMS (Dental) Doctors and not extending the benefit to RMO’s can be termed as arbitrary?; Whether the action of the State government in non-extending the benefit of incentives of rural service to RMO is violative of Regulation 9 (IV) of the MCI regulations, 2000?; Whether the action of the respondents in non-extending the benefit of rural service in terms of Regulation 9 (IV) of the MCI Regulations, 2000 violative of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Versus Dinesh Singh Chauhan, 2016 (9) SCC 749?

Ratio Decidendi: The RMO’s and PCMS doctors are two distinct classes. The PCMS doctors are employees of the State government whereas the RMO’s are employees of the Zila Parishads. The PCMS doctors are serving at the state-level whereas the RMO’s are serving at the district level. The PCMS doctors have joined in service by way of proper selection procedure whereas the RMO’s such like the petitioners joined the service on contractual basis and have been subsequently regularised. However the regularisation is also by the Zila Parishads and not by the State government.

Final Decision: The decision of State Government in restricting the benefit of incentive marks to PCMS/ PCMS (Dental) doctors and not extending the same to RMO’s, passes the test of reasonable and permissible classification as it does fulfil the two mandatory conditions as laid down by the Supreme Court in a series of judgments including the decision in the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.