R.S. Jha, J.

1. As all the aforesaid petitions raise a common issue for decision before this Court, they are heard and decided concomitantly.

2. The petitioners who are all MBBS Doctors working in the State of M.P. as Medical Officers, have filed these petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Regulations 9(iv) Proviso and 9(vii) of the Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations of 2000') and Rules 2(vi), 2(vii), 5(ii) and 6(iii) of the M.P. Autonomous Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course (Degree/Diploma) Admission Rules 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2017') which are in the nature of Executive Instructions and govern admission to Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Medical Education courses in Government Colleges.

3. The petitioners are in-service Doctors who are posted in Government hospitals in the State of M.P. All of them assert that they have rendered more than 3 years of service in rural areas and have appeared in the 2017 National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) Examination as in-service candidates and their names are shown in the merit list as they have obtained more than the cut off marks as prescribed in the MCI Regulations. It is submitted that till the year 2016-17 the State of M.P. was and had been granting additional marks and reservation to in-service candidates who had rendered more than 3 years service in rural and notified areas. However, in view of the impugned amendment made in the Rules relating to admission for the year 2017-18 the petitioners have been denied the same on account of the fact that the incentive marks and reservation has now been restricted only to those in-service candidates who have rendered 3 years service in difficult and remote areas which have been defined to mean the areas situated in 89 notified tribal sub-plan blocks (Tribal Development Blocks). Being aggrieved by the Medical Council of India Regulations and the provisions of the Rules of 2017 the petitioners have filed the present petitions.

4. Before we advert to the detailed submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties before us, it is observed that the learned counsel for the petitioners have fairly stated that they do not wish to press the petitions as far as it relates to challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of Regulations 9(iv) Proviso and 9(vii) of the Regulations of 2000, in view of the fact that the constitutional validity of the aforesaid Regulations has already been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan (2016) 9 SCC 749.

5. To appreciate the controversy involved in the present petitions, we think it apposite to first delineate the legal provisions necessary for adjudication of the present petitions.

6. Clause 9 of the MCI Regulations of 2000, lays down the procedure for selection of Post Graduate students. This clause of the MCI Regulation has been subjected to several amendments. By notification published in the Gazettee of India dated 20.10.2008, Clause 9(1)(b) was introduced in the Regulation providing for 50% reservation of seats in Post Graduate Diploma Courses for Medical Officers in Government service who had served for at least 3 years in remote and difficult areas and who, after acquiring the Post Graduate Diploma, were willing to serve for two more years in remote and/or difficult areas. By Gazette notification dated 17.11.2009 a proviso was inserted after Clause 9(2)(d) for the purposes of providing weightage in marks as an incentive @ 10% marks obtained for each year of service in remote or difficult areas upto the maximum of 30% of the marks obtained for determining the merit in the entrance test for Post Graduate admissions. By another notification dated 16.4.2010 a line was added in Clause 9(1)(b) e