Merit must prevail in admission to postgraduate medical courses; state can implement service quotas, but must not dilute merit standards.

JUDGMENT

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioners, who are working as Assistant Surgeons in Government Primary/Community Health Centers, are before this Court seeking to quash Clause 6-6-11 and Clause 6-6-12 of Ext.P9 Prospectus for admission to Medical Postgraduate Degree Courses 2021-2022 and to declare that Ext.P9 Prospectus to the extent to which it does not prescribe 50% reservation for candidates who have served in rural/difficult rural areas as bad in law and unsustainable.

2. The petitioners aspire to study the Medical PG Course of Doctor of Medicine (MD). The 1st petitioner is working in a Difficult Rural Area and the 2nd petitioner in a Rural Area. They appeared in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) PG 2021 and secured All India Rank 40151 and 22849 respectively. The petitioners applied for PG Medical 2021 for the State Quota seats.

3. As per Clause 6-6-11 of Ext.P9 Prospectus, 10% of State Quota seats is earmarked for Government Service Quota candidates. The petitioners state that Ext.P14 G.O. does not give any split up of seats within the service quota. Ext.P9, however, splits up the service quota among three different services. Splitting up of in-service quota seats has an adverse effect on merit, contends the petitioners.

4. Clause 6-6-12 of Ext.P9 Prospectus provides that Service Weightage in the marks will be given as an incentive at the rate of 1% of marks obtained, for each year in service. For Rural Area service, service weightage will be at the rate of 2% and for Difficult Rural Area service, the service weightage will be at the rate of 5%, up to a maximum of 30% of the marks obtained. Clause 6-6-12 also states that the total service will be reckoned as on the date of notification for inviting application by Commissioner for Entrance Examinations for admission to the Courses.

5. In view of the binding judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and of this Court, merit alone should be the criterion for admission to Medical PG Courses even under in-service quota. Both, splitting up of seats among three service categories and awarding weightage for number of years of service, would offend merit and go against the law laid down by the Apex Court. To the above extent, the impugned Clauses in Ext.P9 Prospectus are liable to be set aside, contend the petitioners.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Clause 6-6-11 splits up in-service quota seats among three service categories. This is illegal as it waters down merit criteria. The most meritorious candidates in Government Service should be admitted to Medical PG irrespective of their service category. As far as Clause 6-6-12 is concerned, the counsel for the petitioners contended that the said Clause is unsustainable in law, to the extent to which it provides for reckoning total service for admission and to the extent it does not provide 10% service weightage for candidates working in Rural areas and Difficult Rural Areas.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged that in Sudhir N. v. State of Kerala and others [ (2015) 6 SCC 685 ], the Apex Court has held that a meritorious candidate cannot be denied admission only because he has an eligible senior above him though lower in merit. In Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another v. State of M.P. and others [ (1999) 7 SCC 120 ], the Apex Court has held that State cannot, while controlling education in State, impinge on standards in institutions for higher education. The State cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by the Union of India under Entry 66 of List-I.

8. The counsel for the petitioners pointed out that as per Regulation 9(1) of the Postgraduate Medical