# 6 S.C.R. 571 STATE OF U.P. & ORS v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN

- **Citation:** [2016] 6 S.C.R. 571
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2016-08-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 8047of2016
- **Bench:** T.S. Thakur, A.M. Khanwilkar, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/6-s-c-r-571-state-of-u-p-ors-v-dr-dinesh-singh-chauhan-31545
- **Pages:** 40

## Headnote

Education/Educational Institutions:
Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education
Regulatio11s, 2000 - Regn. 9 - Proviso to clause IV of Regn. 9 -
Legality of - Held: Regn. 9 is a complete Code - Proviso to clause
IV of Regn. 9 predicates that in determining the merit of candidates
in-service of Government/public Authority, weightage in the marks
may be given as an incentive @ 10% of the marks obtained for
each year of service in specified remote or difficult areas of the
State upto the maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in NEET -
Provision for determining inter-se merit of the candidates including
by giving weightage of marks as incentive to eligible in-service
candidates who have worked in notified remote or difficult areas in
the State, is just and reasonable - Liberal interpretation does 11ot
provide for 30% reservation for in-service candidates, but only of
giving a weightage in the form of i11centive marks as specified to
the class of i11-service candidates, served in 11otified remote and
difficult areas in the State - Mere hypothesis that the State
Government may take a11 improper decisio11 whilst notifying the area
as remote a11d difficult, ca11not be the basis to hold that Regn. 9 and
in particular proviso to Clause IV is unreasonable - Thus, the
procedure evolved in Regn. 9 in general and the proviso to Clause
(IV) in particular is just, proper and reasonable and also fulfill the
test of Art. J.I, bei11g in larger public interest - Further, the State
Governments across the country are not in a position to provide
health care facilities in remote and difficult areas in the State for
want of Doctors - Provision in the form of granti11g weightage of
marks was to give i11centive to the in-service candidates and to
attract more graduates to join as Medical Officers in the State Health.
Care Sector - On facts, High Court was justified in quashing the
571
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
572
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 6 S.C.R.
Government Order dated 28.02.2014 providing for reservation to
in-service candidates, being violative of Regn. 9 as in force -
However, the operative direction by the High Court is modified to
the effect that admission process for Academic Year 2016-17
onwards to the Post Graduate Degree Course in the State should
proceed as per Regn. 9 including by giving incentive marks to
eligible in-service candidates in terms of proviso to Clause IV -
Constitution of India - Art 14.
Disposing of the appeals and the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Regulation 9 of the Medical Council of India
Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 is a complete·
Code regarding the procedure to be followed for admissions to
medical courses and a provision for determining inter-se merit of
the candidates including by giving weightage of marks as incentive
to eligible in-service candidates who have worked in notified
remote or difficult areas in the State, is just, reasonable and
necessary in larger public interest. [Para 39) (610-D-E]
1.2 A priori, it mu.st be held that the relief claimed in the
application filed by the State Government is an ingenious way to
overcome the unconditional and unequivocal statement made
before this Court on 12.05.2016. The State Government is obliged
to adopt a procedure as is stipulated by the Central Act and
Regulations framed thereunder and noted in the interim order
dated 12.05.2016. Regulation 9(2) specifically deals with the
process of "determining the academic merit" of the eligible
candidates. Indeed, the primary consideration for determining
the academic merit of the candidates is the marks obtained by
the respective candidates in the common competitive test or
centralized competitive test held by the concerned Authority. The
third proviso in Regulation 9(2) is relevant. It envisages that in
determining the merit, weightage may be given at the rate of
lOo/o of the marks obtained for each year in-service in remote or
difficult areas upto the maximum of 30% marks o

## Text

_Characters 0–39,879 of 97,776. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39879 for what follows._

(2016] 6 S.C.R. 571
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
v.
DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN
(Civil Appeal No. 8047of2016)
AUGUST 16, 2016
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND DR. D.Y.
CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions:
Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education
Regulatio11s, 2000 - Regn. 9 - Proviso to clause IV of Regn. 9 -
Legality of - Held: Regn. 9 is a complete Code - Proviso to clause
IV of Regn. 9 predicates that in determining the merit of candidates
in-service of Government/public Authority, weightage in the marks
may be given as an incentive @ 10% of the marks obtained for
each year of service in specified remote or difficult areas of the
State upto the maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in NEET -
Provision for determining inter-se merit of the candidates including
by giving weightage of marks as incentive to eligible in-service
candidates who have worked in notified remote or difficult areas in
the State, is just and reasonable - Liberal interpretation does 11ot
provide for 30% reservation for in-service candidates, but only of
giving a weightage in the form of i11centive marks as specified to
the class of i11-service candidates, served in 11otified remote and
difficult areas in the State - Mere hypothesis that the State
Government may take a11 improper decisio11 whilst notifying the area
as remote a11d difficult, ca11not be the basis to hold that Regn. 9 and
in particular proviso to Clause IV is unreasonable - Thus, the
procedure evolved in Regn. 9 in general and the proviso to Clause
(IV) in particular is just, proper and reasonable and also fulfill the
test of Art. J.I, bei11g in larger public interest - Further, the State
Governments across the country are not in a position to provide
health care facilities in remote and difficult areas in the State for
want of Doctors - Provision in the form of granti11g weightage of
marks was to give i11centive to the in-service candidates and to
attract more graduates to join as Medical Officers in the State Health.
Care Sector - On facts, High Court was justified in quashing the
571
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
572
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 6 S.C.R.
Government Order dated 28.02.2014 providing for reservation to
in-service candidates, being violative of Regn. 9 as in force -
However, the operative direction by the High Court is modified to
the effect that admission process for Academic Year 2016-17
onwards to the Post Graduate Degree Course in the State should
proceed as per Regn. 9 including by giving incentive marks to
eligible in-service candidates in terms of proviso to Clause IV -
Constitution of India - Art 14.
Disposing of the appeals and the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Regulation 9 of the Medical Council of India
Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 is a complete·
Code regarding the procedure to be followed for admissions to
medical courses and a provision for determining inter-se merit of
the candidates including by giving weightage of marks as incentive
to eligible in-service candidates who have worked in notified
remote or difficult areas in the State, is just, reasonable and
necessary in larger public interest. [Para 39) (610-D-E]
1.2 A priori, it mu.st be held that the relief claimed in the
application filed by the State Government is an ingenious way to
overcome the unconditional and unequivocal statement made
before this Court on 12.05.2016. The State Government is obliged
to adopt a procedure as is stipulated by the Central Act and
Regulations framed thereunder and noted in the interim order
dated 12.05.2016. Regulation 9(2) specifically deals with the
process of "determining the academic merit" of the eligible
candidates. Indeed, the primary consideration for determining
the academic merit of the candidates is the marks obtained by
the respective candidates in the common competitive test or
centralized competitive test held by the concerned Authority. The
third proviso in Regulation 9(2) is relevant. It envisages that in
determining the merit, weightage may be given at the rate of
lOo/o of the marks obtained for each year in-service in remote or
difficult areas upto the maximum of 30% marks obtained in the
common examination by the candidates. This Regulation does
not envisage reservation of seats for the Post Graduate "Degree"
Courses, unlike the express provision which is made in the same
Regulation to provide reservation of seats for in-service
candidates in "Diploma" courses. [Para 17) [591-A-D]
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN
1.3 It is well established that the State has no authority to
enact any law muchless by executive instructions that may
undermine the procedure for admission to Post Graduate Medical
Courses enunciated by the Central Legislation and Regulations
framed thereunder, being a subject falling within the Entry 66 of
List I, Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The procedure for
selection of candidates for the Post Graduate Degree Courses is
. one such area on which the Central Legislation and Regulations
must prevail. [Para 20) (595-A-R)
Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) v. State of MP. 1999 (1) Suppl.
SCR 249: (1999) 7 SCC 120 - relied on.
1.4 Regulation 9 is a composite provision prescribing
procedure for selection of candidates - both for Post Graduate
"Degree" as well as Post Graduate "Diploma" Courses.
Regulation 9 mandates that there shall be a single National
Eligibility-cum~ Entrance Test (NEET) to be conducted by the
designated Authority. Clause (Ill) provides for eligibility for
admission to any Post Graduate Course in a particular academic
year. Clause (IV) is the relevant provision. It is a provision
mandating admission of candidates strictly as per the merit list of
eligible candidates for the respective medical courses in the State.
This provision, however, contains a proviso. It predicates that in
determining the merit of candidates who are in-service of
Government or a public Authority, weightage in the marks may
be given by the Government/Competent Authority as an incentive
at the rate of 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service
in specified remote or difficult areas of the State upto the
maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in NEET. This provision
even if read liberally does not provide for reservation for
in-service candidates, but only of giving a weightage in the form
of incentive marks as specified to the class of in- service
candidates (se..Ved in notified remote and difficult areas in the
State). [Para 21) (595-C-E, G-H; 596-A-BJ
1.5 From the plain language of this proviso, it is amply clear
that it does not envisage reservation for in-service candidates in
respect of Post Graduate "Degree" Courses. This proviso
postulates giving weightage of marks to "specified in-service
573
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
574
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 6 S.C.R.
candidates" who have worked in notified remote and/or difficult
areas in the State - both for Post Graduate "Degree" Courses as
also for Post Graduate "Diploma" Courses. Further, the
weightage of marks so allotted is required to be reckoned while
preparing the merit •list of candidates. Thus understood, the
Central Enactment and the Regulations framed thereunder do
not provide for reservation for in-service candidates in Post
Graduate "Degree" Courses. [Paras 22, 23] [596-C-D]
1.6 The admission process in the instant case is governed
by the Regulations which have come into force from Academic
Year 2013-14. This Regulation is_ a self-contained Code. There is
nothing in this Regulation to even remotely indicate that a
separate channel for admission to in-service candidates must be
provided, at least in respect of Post Graduate "Degree" Courses.
In contradistinction, however, 50% seats are earmarked for the
Post Graduate "Diploma" Courses for in-service candidates, as
is discernible from Clause (VII). If the Regulation intended a
similar separate channel for in-service candidates even in respect
of Post Graduate "Degree" Courses, that position would have
been made clear in Regulation 9 itself. In absence thereof, it
must be presumed that a separate channel for in-service
candidates is not permissible for admission to Post Graduate
"Degree" Courses. Thus, the State Government, in law, had no
authority to issue a Government Order to provide to the contrary.
Hence, the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the said
Government Order being contrary to the mandate of Regulation
9 of the Regulations of 2000, as applicable from Academic Year
2013-14. [Para 23J [596-F-H; 597-A-B]
1.7 Providing 30% reservation to in-service candidates in
Post Graduate "Degree" Courses is not permissible. It does not
however, follow that giving weightagc or incentive marks to
in-service candidates for Post Graduate "Degree" Courses entails
in excessive or substantial departure from the rule of merit and
equality. For, Regulation 9 recognizes the principle of giving
weightage to in-service candidates while determining their merit.
In that sense, incentive marks given to in-service candidates is
in recognition of their sen'ice reckoned in remote and difficult
areas of the State, which marks are to be added to the marks
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN
obtained by them in the NEET. That is a legitimate and rational
basis to encourage the Medical Graduates/Doctors to offer their
services and expertise in remote or difficult areas of the State for
some time. Indisputably, there is a wide gap between the demand
for basic health care and commensurate medical facilities, because
of the inertia amongst the young doctors to go to such areas.
Thus, giving specified incentive marks (to eligible in-service
candidates) is permissible differentiation whilst determining their
merit. It is an objective method of determining their merit. [Para
24) [597-E-H; 598-A)
1.8 The real effect of Regulation 9 is to assign specified
marks commensurate with the length of service rendered by the
candidate in notified remote and difficult areas in the State linked
to the marks obtained in NEET. That is a procedure prescribed
in the Regulation for determining merit of the candidates for
admission to the Post Graduate "Degree" Courses for a single
State. This serves a dual purpose. Firstly, the fresh qualified
Doctors will be attracted to opt for rural service, as later they
would stand a good chance to get admission to Post Graduate
"Degree" Courses of their choice. Secondly, the Rural Health
Care Units run by the Public Authority would be benefitted by
Doctors willing to work in notified rural or difficult areas in the
State. A Regulation such as this subserves larger public interest.
[Para 28] [600-B-DI
1.9 Regulation 9 does not permit preparation of two merit
lists. It prescribes the basis for determining the eligibilities of
the candidates including the method to be adopted for determining
the inter se merit, on the basis of one merit list of candidates
appearing in the same NEET including by giving commensurate
weightage of marks to the in-service candidates. [Para 29] [601G-H; 602-A)
1.10 Regulations have been framed by an Expert Body based
on past experience and including the necessity to reckon the
services and experience gained by the in-service candidates in
notified remote and difficult areas in the State. The proviso
prescribes the measure for giving incentive marks to in-service
candidates who have worked in notified remote and difficult areas
in the State. That can be termed as a qualitative factor for
575
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 6 S.C.R.
A
determining their merit. Even the quantitative factor to reckon
merit of the eligible in-service candidates is spelt out in the
proviso. It envisages giving of incentive marks at the rate of
10% of the marks obtained for each year of service in remote
·and/or difficult areas up to 30% of the marks obtained in NEET.
B
It is an objective method of linking the incentive marks to the
. marks obtained in NEET by the candidate. Accordingly, some
weightage marks given to eligible in-service candidate linked to
performance in NEET and also the length of service in remote
and/or difficult areas in the.State by no standard can be said to be
excessive, unreasonable or irrational. This provision has been
C
brought into force in larger public interest and not merely to
provide institutional preference or for that matter to create
separate channel for the in-service candidate, muchless
reservation. It is unfathomable as to how such a provision can be
said to be unreasonable or irrational. [Para 30] (602-A-C, F-G)
D
E
F
G
H
1.11 In the instant proceedings, however, large number of
candidates who earlier found place in the merit list have been
affected by the fresh merit list prepared in terms of Order of this
C.ourt dated 12.05.2016. As a result of giving effect to Regulation
9, the fresh list has thrown up a different argument for
consideration. The in-service candidates who had secured
relatively less marks in NEET have been placed high up in the
order of merit consequent to addition of incentive marks @ 10%
of the marks for each year of service in the remote and/or difficult
areas upto the maximum of 30% of marks obtained in NEET
(CET). The rights of such candidates to be considered for
admission, is not affected. What is affected is the opportunity to
get admission in a college or subject of their choice. There can,
however, be no right to get the subject or college of one's choice.
The provision in the shape of Regulation 9 is to determine the
merit of the competing candidates. Provision for giving incentive
marks to in-service candidates is permissible in law; and thus
the proviso to Clause IV in Regulation 9 must be upheld in larger
public interest. That provision has been introduced, inter-alia,
· also to address the deficiency and lack of response of graduate
doctors to serve in remote or difficult areas in the State. The
scarcity of doctors in villages has been felt for quite some time
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN
577
for which the provision in the form of proviso to Clause IV of
A
Regulation 9 was necessitated. [Para 33) (604-G-H; 605-A-C]
1.12 Regulation 9 per se makes no distinction between
Government and non-Government colleges for allocation of
weightage of marks to in-service candidates. Instead, it mandates
preparation of one merit list for the State on the basis of results
in NEET. Further, regarding in-service candidates, all it provides
is that the candidate must have been in-service of a
Government/public Authority and served in remote and difficult
areas notified .by the State Government and the Competent
Authority from time to time. The Authorities are, therefore,
obliged to continue with the admission process strictly in
conformity with Regulation 9. The fact that most of the direct
candidates who have secured higher marks in the NEET than
the in-service candidates, may not b~ in.a position to get a subject
B
c
or college of their choice, and are likely to secure a subject or
college not acceptable to them, cannot be the basis to question · D
the validity of proviso to Clause IV of Regulation 9. The purpose
behind proviso is to encourage graduates to join as medical
officers and serve in notified remote and difficult areas of the
State. The fact that for quite some time no such appointments
have been made by the State Government also cannot be a basis
E
to disregard the mandate of proviso to Clause IV - of giving
weightage of marks to the in-service candidates who have served
for a specified period in notified remote and difficult areas of the
State. [Para 34) [606-E-H; 607-A]
1.13 The setting in which the proviso to Clause IV has been
F
i~erted is of some relevance. The State Governments across
the ~9Untry are not in a position to provide health ,care facilities
in remote and difficult areas in the State for want of Doctors. In
fact there is a proposal to make one year service for MBBS
students to apply for admission to Post Graduate Courses1 in ·
remote and difficult areas as compulsory. The ptovision in the
form of granting weightage of marks, therefore, was to give
incentive to the in-service candidates and to attract more
graduates to join as Medical Officers in the State Health Care
, Sector. The provision was first inserted in 2012. To determine
the academic merit of candidates, merely securing high marks in
G
H
578
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
~.:,.. .
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 6 S.C.R.
the NEET is not enough. The academic merit of the candidate
must also reckon the services rendered for the common or public
good. Having served in rural and difficult areas of the State for
one year or above, the incumbent having sacrificed his career by
rendering services for providing health care facilities in rural
areas, deserve incentive marks to be reckoned for determining
merit. Notably, the State Government is posited with the
discretion to notify areas in the given State to be remo'te, tribal
or difficult areas. That declaration is made on the basis of decision
taken at the highest level; and is applicable for all the beneficial
schemes of the State for such areas and not limited to the matter
of admissions to Post Graduate Medical Courses. Not even one
instance has been brought to the notice to show that some areas
which are not remote or difficult areas has been so notified. The
mere hypothesis that the State Government may take an improper
decision whilst notifying the area as remote and difficult, cannot
be the basis to hold that Regulation 9 and in particular proviso to
Clause IV is unreasonable. Thus, the procedure evolved in
Regulation 9 in general and the proviso to Clause (IV) in
particular is just, proper and reasonable and also fulfill the test of
Article 14 of the Constitution, being in larger public interest.
[Para 35) [607-E-F; 608-A-E)
1.14 Ordinarily, as the subject matter of challenge before
the High Court was pertaining to Academic Year 2015-16, the
dispensation directed in terms of Order dated 12th May 2016
should apply thereto. However, considering the fact that the said
admission process has been completed and all concerned have
acted upon on that basis and that the candidates admitted to the
respective Post Graduate Degree Courses in the concerned
colleges have also commenced their studies, it may not be
appropriate to unsettle that position given the fact that neither
the direct candidates nor the eligible in-service candidates who
had worked in remote and/or difficult areas in the State approached
the Court for such relief. It is only the in-service candidates who
had not worked in remote and/or difficult areas in the State
approached the Court for equating them with their counterparts
who had worked in remote and/or difficult areas in the matter of
reservation of seats for in-service candidates. If at this distance
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN
of time, the settled admissions were to be disturbed by quashing
the entire admission process for Academic Year 2015-16, it would
inevitably result in all the seats in the State almost over 500 in
number remaining unfilled for one academic year; and that the
candidates to be admitted on the basis of fresh list for Academic·
Year 2015-16 will have to take fresh admission coinciding with
the admissions for Academic Year 2016-17. That would
necessitate doubling the strength of seats in the respective
colleges for the current Academic Year to accommodate all those
students, which may not be feasible and is avoidable. [Para 36]
(608-F-H; 609-A-C]
1.15 The High Court was justified in quashing the
Government Order providing for reservation to in- service
candidates, being violative of Regulation 9 as in force. However,
the operative direction given by the High Court is modified to
bring it in conformity with the direction contained in the interim
order dated 12•h May, 2016 and instead it is directed that
admission process for Academic Year 2016-17 onwards to the
Post Graduate Degree Course in the State should proceed as
per Regulation 9 including by giving incentive marks to eligible
in-service candidates in terms of proviso to Clause IV of
Regulation 9 (equivalent to third proviso to Regulation 9(2) of
the Old Regulations. This arrangement is likely to affect some of
the direct candidates, whose applications were already processed
by the competent Authority for concerned Academic Year 2016-17.
However, their admissions cannot be validated in breach of or
disregarding the mandate of Regulation 9, as in force. (Para 37]
[609-E-G)
1.16 The view taken by the High Court that the direction to
prepare fresh merit list vide interim order dated l21h May 2016
was in respect of only such eligible in-service candidates as had
submitted· applications for admission to Post Graduate Degree
Courses for the relevant academic year within stipulated time, is
upheld. The direction in the interim order wa§. not to consider all
similarly placed persons (eligible in-service candidates)
irrespective of whether they had made applications for admission
to Post Graduate Degree Courses or otherwise. [Para 38) (610B-D]
579
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
580
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 6 S.C.R.
State of MP. & Ors. v. Gopal D. Tirthani & Ors. 2003
(1) Suppl. SCR 797: 2003 (7) sec 83 -
held
inapplicable.
Snehelata Patnaik (Dr.) v. State of Orissa (1992) 2 SCC
267 - relied on.
Sudhir N. and Ors. v. State of Kera/a and Ors. 2015 (1)
SCR 884 : (2015) 6 SCC 685; AIIMS Students Union v.
AIIMS & Ors. 2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 79 : 2002 (1) SCC
428; Dinesh Kumar (Dr.) (II) v. Motilal Nehru Medical
College 1986 (3) SCR 345: (1986) 3 SCC 727;
Narayan Sharma (Dr.) v. Pankaj Sharma Kr. Lenkar
1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 364: (2000) 1 SCC 44; State of
U.P. v. Pradip Tandon (1975) l SCR 267; State of
Kera/a v. T.P. Roshana 1979 (2) SCR 974 : (1979) 1
SCC 572; MCI v. State of Karnataka 1998 (3) SCR
740:(1998) 6 sec 131 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
2015 (1) SCR 884
referred to
Para4
1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249
relied on
Para20
2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 79
referred to
Para 24
2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 797
held inapplicable
Para 31
1986 (~) SCR 345
referred to
Para 25
(199~) 2 sec 267
relied on
Para 28
1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 364
referred to
Para 25
(197~) 1 SCR 267
referred to
Para25
1979 (2) SCR 974
referred to
Para27
1998 (3) SCR 740
referred to
Para27
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDrCTION: Civil Appeal No. 8047 of
2016.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.04.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No. 34118of2015
WITH
C. A. Nos. 8048, 8049-51, 8052 and 8053 of2016
H
W. P. (C) 372 of2016.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN
Ranjit Kumar, SG, Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Harin P. Rawal, K. K.
Venugopal, Sanjay Hegde, Gopal Subramanayam, Ajay Kumar Misra,
K. V. Bishwanathan, P. S. Patwaliya, Yatindra Singh, Ashok H. Desai,
Dinesh Dwivedi, R. K. Ojha, Sr. Advs., lrshad Ahmad, AAG, Abhay
Kumar, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Goutham Shivshankar, Rahat Bansal,
Rohit Bhat, Bipin Aspatwar, Ms. Fozia Rahman, Ms. Puja Jain, D. V.
Singh, Ms. Akshana Singh, Ms. Anuradha D. Mishra, Ms. Tulika
Mukherjee, Mis. Anuradha & Associates, Ajay Kumar Singh, Prakash
Gautam, Sameer Kr. Tiwari, Ms. Sheenu Chauhan, Ajay Bhargava, Mrs.
Vanita Bhargava, Aseem Chaturvedi, Ms. Mehrunisha Anand, Mis.
Khaintan & Co., Abhish Kumar, Ajay Singh, Ms. Archana Singh, Durga
Vijay Singh, Arijeet Singh, A. S. Pundir, Rahul Pratap, Abhisth Kumar,
Kush Chaturvedi, Ajay Kumar Singh, Bipin Pradip Aspatwar, Gaurav
Sharma, Dhawal Mohan, Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatra, Ms. Vara
Gaur, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, D. S. Mahra, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Abhishekh
Atreya, Arunabh Chowdhury, Rahul Pratap, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Ms.
Mona K. Rajvanshi, Ramnesh Jerath, Taru Gupta, Abhay Kumar, A. S.
Pundi, Gaurav Sharma, Mis. Anuradha & Associates, Mis. AP & J
Chambers, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Com1 was delivered by
A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. I. Leave granted.
2. We have three sets of matters before us. The first is appeals
arising from the common judgment of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad dated 7'h April, 2016 in Writ Petition Nos: 1380, 34118 and
35051 all of2015. The second is an appeal arising from the decision of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 271h
May, 2016 in Writ Petition No: 12004 of2016. Thethird is a Writ Petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for a declaration
that the third Proviso to Regulation 9(2) of the Post Graduate Medical
Education Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said
Regulation'), is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution; and for a direction against the Authorities to refrain from
disturbing the selection of the said writ petitioners or to interfere with
their Post Graduate studies which they are presently pursuing. The
latter two proceedings are the fall out of the interim order passed by this
Court dated I 21h May, 20 t6.
3. The first set of appeals (arising from SLP (C) Nos: 13.832,
581
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
582
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 6 S.C.R.
13872, 14427 and 15154-56 all of2016), are directed against the common
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 7'h April, 2016
disposing the aforesaid three Writ Petitions preferred by the in-service
Medical Officers in the State of Uttar Pradesh, challenging the
Government Orders dated 28'h February, 2014 and I 7'h April, 2014 - so
far as it imposed a condition of working of three years in rural or difficult
areas as ultra-vires and hit by Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. It was also prayed that No Objection Certificate be issued in
favourofthe petitioners for admission in MD/MS/Diploma in UPPGMEE2015 and for quashing of the declaration of result dated 2nd June, 2015.
4. The said writ petitioners claimed to be members of the Provincial
Medical 1 i.:alth Services in the State of Uttar Pradesh. According to
them, they were also entitled to be considered for admission in Post
Graduate Degree Courses against 30% quota for in-service candidates.
That plea was opposed on the ground that 30% quota was reserved only
for the in-service candidates who had worked in remote and difficult
areas; and not for the in-service Medical Officers generally. In these
petitions, the High Court was primarily required to c'Onsider the question
as to whether the in-service Medical Officers in the State of Uttar
Pradesh who had working experience (in areas other than remote and
difficult areas), could also be treated as eligible for admission against the
reserved 30% quota for in-service candidates in Post Graduate Degree
Courses. While considering this issue, the High Court, in the context of
Regulation 9, noticed that there was no provision in The Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Enactment or
Act of 1956); and the Regulations framed thereunder knowi1 as Medical
Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000
(hereinafter referred to as the said Regulations), stipulating reservation
for in-service candidates against the 30% seats in "Post Graduate Degree
Courses". The provision, however, was only to give weightage of marks
to in-service candidates who had worked for specified period in CHC
and PHC Hospitals in notified remote, difficult or backward areas of the
State. On the other hand, reservation has been limited to Post Graduate
"Diploma" Courses by the said Regulations. The High Court, therefore,
called upon the Medical Council oflndia to clarify its stand in this behalf.
The Medical Council of India stated before the High Court that no
reservation for in-service candidates was permissible in respect of Post
Graduate "Degree" Courses; unlike for the Post Graduate "Diploma"
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
Courses, in terms of Regulations framed in that behalf. Further, the
State Government could not have framed any statutory Rules much less
provided different dispensation by an executive fiat. In light of this stand,
the High Court was pleased to hold that the State Government has had
no authority to frame any Rules or issue any executive order to provide
for reservation in the Post Graduate "Degree" Courses, contrary to the
statutory Regulations framed under the Medical Council of India Act,
1956 (Central Enactment). The High Court whilst adverting to the
decisions of this Court including the recent judgment in the case ofSudhir
N. mu/ others Versus State of Kenda and others' held that Regulation
9 is a complete Code and the admission process must strictly adhere to
the norms stipulated therein. It, thus, proceeded to quash the Government
Notification-cum-Government Order dated 28 1h February, 2014 and
directed that admissions to Post Graduate "Degree" Courses be
proceeded strictly on merits amongst the candidates who have obtained
requisite minimum marks in the common entrance examination in question.
It also noted that as per Regulation 9, at best, the in-service candidates
who have worked in remote and difficult areas in the State, as notified
by the State Government/Competent Authority from time to time, alone
would be eligible for weightage of marks as incentive at the rate of 10%
of the marks obtained for each year of service in such areas upto the
maximum of30% marks obtained in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test.
5. This common judgment of the High Court has been challenged
in appeals arising from SLP (Civil) Nos.13832, 14427, 13872, 15154-56/
2016. When these appeals came up for consideration on J2•h May,
2016, this Court recorded the statement made on behalf of the State
Government and proceeded to pass the following order:
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has in terms of the
impugned judgment quashed Government Order dated 28th
February, 2014 whereby 30% seats in post-graduate degree
courses in medicine and other disciplines have been reserved for
in-service candidates who had three years or more of rural service
in notified and difficult areas. The High Court has relying upon
the judgment of this Court in Sudhir N. and Others v. State of
Kerala and Others - (2015) 6 SCC 685 held that the State
1 (2015) 6 sec 685
583
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
584
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 6 S.C.R.
Government could not by an executive order change the method
of selection for admission of candidates for post-graduate courses
in medical science so as to violate or dilute the regulations framed
by the Medical Council of India in exercise of its powers under
Section 33 of Medical Council oflndia Act. Regulation 9 of the
Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education
Regulations, 2000 which deals with the method of selection of
candidates for admission to post-graduate courses reads as under:
"9. SELECTION OF POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS.
9(1 )(I) Students for Post Graduate medical courses 3 shall be
selected strictly on the basis of their Inter-se Academic Merit. b)
50% of the seats in Post Graduate Diploma Course shall be
reserved for Medical Officers in the Government service, who
have served for at least three years in remote and difficult area.
After acquiring the PG Diploma, the Medical Officers shall serve
for two more years in remote and/or difficult areas. In Clause
9( I )(b) after the words" remote and/or difficult areas" and in the
proviso to the clause 9(2)(d), the following shall be inserted in
terms of Notification published on 16.04.20 I 0. "As directed by
the competent State authorities from time to time." .9 (2) For
determining the' Academic Merit' the University/Institution may
adopt the following methodology: (a) On the basis of merit as
determined by a Competitive Test' conducted by the State
Government or by the competent authority appointed by the State
government or by the university/group ofuniversities in the same
state; or(b) On the basis of merit as determined by a centralised
. competitive test held at the national level; or (c) on the basis of
the individual cumulative performance at the first, second and
third MBBS examinations provided admissions are University wise.
Or ( d) combination of (a) and ( c) Provided that wherever Entrance
Test for postgraduates admission is held by a state government or
a university or any other authorised examining body, the minimum
percentage of marks for eligibility for admission to postgraduate
medical course shall be SO percent for general category candidates
and 40 percent for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes. Provided further
that in Non-Governmental institutions fifty percent of the iota!
seats shall 4 be filled by the Competent authority notified by the
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DJNESH SINGH CHAUHAN
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
State Government and the remaining fifty percent by the
management(s) of the institution on the basis oflnter-se Academic
Merit. The following proviso is added after clause 9(2)( d) in terms"'
of Gazette Notification published on 17 .11.2009.
"Further provided that in detennining the merit and the entrance
test for postgraduate admission weightage in the marks may be
given as an incentive at the rate of I 0% of the marks obtained for
each year in-service in remote or difficult areas up to the mmdmum
of30% of the marks obtained." (Emphasis supplied by us)
It was contended on behalf of the petitioners-candidates by
Mrs. lndu Malhotra, learned senior counsel, that while the question
whether the Government could reserve seats for candidates who
had rendered service in notified rural and difficult areas, could be
examined in greater detail at the final hearing, the least that this
court could do at the interim stage is to direct redrawing of the
merit list of the candidates in terms of the Regulation 9 (supra). It
was submitted that proviso (iii) to Regulation 9(2) clearly permits
grant of weightage in terms of marks by way of an incentive for
rural service rendered by candidates at the rate of I 0% for each
year of service in remote or difficult areas subject to a maximum
of 30% of the marks obtained by a candidate. It was contended
that even if the State was not competent to separately reserve a
specific number of seats for candidates who have served in notified
areas the fact that candidates had rendered service in notified
rural and difficult areas entitled them to weightage in terms of the
said proviso. It was urged that the State Government could be
directed to re-draw the merit list of the candidates who appeared
in the competitive examination on the basis of the above Regulation
giving to the eligible candidates weightage for rural service, if any
rendered by them, and granting admission accordingly to those
who qualify on that basis. It was urged that while the State
Government had already completed one round of counselling for
some of the candidates in the merit list, the remaining candidates
had yet to be counselled. This may therefore call for cancellation
of the earlier counselling and holding of a fresh round of counselling
of candidates after a revised merit list drawn in the manner
indicated above. Mr. o·inesh Owivedi, learned ;enior counsel
appearing for the respondents~writ petitioners and Mr. Dushyant
585
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
586
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2016] 6 S.C.R.
Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the State, submit that
they will have no objection ifthe merit list is redrawn on the basis
of Regulation 9 (supra) after giving to eligible candidates the
weightage for service, if any rendered, in notified rural areas.
They have also no objection to the counselling process being done
de novo on the basis of the revised merit list so prepared.
In the circumstances, we direct that the State Government
shall as expeditiously as possible revise and redraw the merit list
of_!!.1e candidates keeping in view Regulation 9 of the Medical
Coun~il of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations,
2000 and giving to the eligible candidates such 6 weigtage as may
be due to them for rendering service in notified rural and/or difficult
areas and to grant admission to the candidates found suitable for
the same on the basis of such redrawn merit list. This exercise
shall be completed before 30th May, 2016, the last date fixed for
granting of admission. The entire exercise so conducted shall
however remain subject to the outcome of these proceedings.
Post after ensuing summer vacation."
(emphasis supplied)
6. In furtherance of the above order, the Competent Authority has
prepared a fresh merit list ofall the candidates in terms of Regulation 9,
giving weightage of marks to eligible in-service Medical Officers. As a
result, the previous merit list stood fully altered and realigned. The
admission process will have to be taken forward on the basis of this
fresh merit list. As a result of the preparation ofa fresh merit list, most
of the candidates who had earlier secured higher position in the common
entrance test examination, have been pushed back due to allocation of
incentive marks to the concerned in-service Medical Officers. Hence,
those affected candidates made representations to the State of Uttar
Pradesh; which in turn was advised to file Interlocutory Application in
this Court being I.A.No.5/2016 in SLP (Civil) No.13832/2016, praying
for permitting the State Government to restore the position as it existed
prior to the issuance of the Government Order dated 28111 February, 2014,
so that, admission to Post Graduate Medical Seats can be made on the
basis of marks obtained by the concerned candidates in the NEET; and
further to extend the time for completing the admission process in the
Post Graduate Degree Courses. Besides the State Government, even
the candidates affected by the fresh merit list prepared in terms of
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
Regulation 9, have rushed to this Court by way of separate Interlocutory
Applications in the respective appeals. According to them, status quoante should be restored to enable them to pursue their Post Graduate
"Degree" Courses. in the same colleges where they have already been
admitted.
7. The second set of appeal (arising from.SLP (Civil) No.15529/
2016), is by Medical Officers of State Medical Colleges seeking admission
to Post Graduate Degree Courses. According to them, they were also
eligible candidates in terms of Regulation 9 and should have been
considered at the time of preparing a fresh merit list. The said Writ
Petition was dismissed by the Division Bench vide Order dated 271h
May, 2016 on the finding that it was not feasible for the Department to
consider the claim of eligible in-service candidates who had not submitted
applications/documents before the notified date. In other words, only
those in-service candidates who had submitted applications for grant of
admission to the Post Graduate Degree Courses within the stipulated
time have been considered. This proceeding is, therefore, the fall out of
the interim direction issued by this Court on l 2
1h May, 2016.
8. The third set of proceedings being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 72/
2016, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, is by students
aspiring to take admissions to various Post Graduate "Degree" Courses
in the State of Uttar Pradesh; and who claim to have been affected by
the dispensation specified in the interim order passed by this Court dated
121h May, 2016. In that, they have been dislodged from the respective
Post Graduate Degree Courses in which they were already admitted in
the concerned medical colleges and even started pursuing their courses.
9. These matters were listed to consider the Interlocutory
Applications filed by the State of U .P.