Cannot Claim Sub Quota as a Right: HC to NEET PG In-Service Candidates

Such an observation came from the High Court bench comprising of Justice N. Nagaresh after it took note of the fact that in the Prospectus for PG Degree courses for 2021-2022, the Government had provided for 2% service weightage for Rural Area service and 5% for Difficult Rural Area service.

"Furthermore, Ext.P9 Prospectus also provides weightage for Rural Service and Difficult Rural Service from 2% to 5%. The petitioners cannot as of right claim that a sub-quota should be provided exclusively for candidates with Rural/Difficult Rural area service," noted the bench as it dismissed the plea seeking quashing of certain clauses of the Prospectus.

The case concerned the petitioner doctors, who are working as Assistant Surgeons in Government Primary/Community Health Centers. They are serving in difficult and rural areas and they aspire to study PG medical course of Doctor of Medicine (MD).

Also Read: Incentive for In-service Doctors is Policy Matter, Cannot Interfere: HC junks plea seeking extension of cut-off date

They approached the court seeking to quash Clause 6-6-11 and 6-6-12 of Prospectus for admission to Medical Postgraduate Degree Courses 2021-2022 and declare that the Prospectus in not prescribing 50% reservation for In-service candidates is unsustainable.

After appearing in the NEET PG 2021 examination, the first and second petitioner doctor secured All India Rank of 40151 and 22849 respectively. Even though Clause 6-6-11 of the Prospectus has mentioned that 10% of State Quota seats is earmarked for Government Service Quota candidates, the petitioners pointed out that the Government Order has not mentioned any split up of seats within the service quota.

The prospectus, however, splits up the service quota among three different services and the petitioners contended that splitting up of in-service quota seats has n adverse effect on merit.

On the other hand, clause 6-6-12 of the Prospectus provided 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 the rural areas, service weightage has been fixed at the rate of 2%, for difficult areas it is 5%, up to a maximum of 30% of the marks obtained.

Referring to the binding judgments of the Apex Court and the Kerala High Court, the petitioners contended that merit alone should be the criterion or admission to Medical PG courses even under the in-service quota. Thus, splitting up of the seats in three categories and awarding weightage for number of years of service, would offend merit and go against the Apex Court rules, contended the petitioners as they sought to set aside the aforementioned clauses of the Prospectus.

The counsel for the petitioners argued that most meritorious candidates in Government service should be admitted to PG medical courses irrespective of their service category. Referring to Clause 6-6-12, he further contended that the clause was unsustainable in law as 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.

On the other hand, the Government Pleader submitted that the admission to the PG medical degree courses in the Government medical colleges in Kerala was being conducted as per the prospectus issued by the Government.

He also argued that the Service quota was reintroduced in the light of the Constitution Bench judgment of the top court in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and others v. Union of India and others, wherein it was held that the State had the legislative competence to introduce a service quota in respect of admission to PG medical courses.

After considering the submissions by both the parties, the HC bench noted that as per the Government Prospectus, 10% of State Quota seats in Post Graduate Medical Courses is reserved for Government Service Quota Candidates. The said Seats are to be filled up by candidates from Medical Education Service, Health Service and Insurance Medical Service in a ratio of 45:45:10.

Further the bench remarked that "In view of Entry 25 of List-III of the Constitution of India, the State Legislature is competent to introduce a service quota in respect of PG Medical Courses. Service Quota is provided taking into consideration the requirement of Post Graduate Medical Officers in each Service under the Government. Such Quota is provided more in public interest than in the individual interest of candidates getting admitted under the quota. The State will therefore be amply justified in splitting up in-service quota seats as per the requirements in various eligible services."

Referring to the contention that by splitting up of seats, merit was being compromised, the bench observed, "This year 45% seats out of the in-service quota seats are earmarked by the State for Medical Education Service and Health Service and the remaining 10%, for Insurance Medical Service. As the splitting up of seats is made considering the requirement of Post Graduate Medical Officers in each service and since it is in public interest, this Court finds no illegality in dividing the available seats among the three services. The division is in public interest. Academically most meritorious among each service only will be selected for admission. Therefore, it cannot be said that by splitting up of seats, academic merit has been given a go bye."

The bench also took note of the contention that Clause 6-6-12 of the Prospectus does not provide 10% service weightage for candidates working in Rural and Difficult areas and thus it is unsustainable. At this outset, the bench opined, "It may be noted that this argument of the petitioners goes against the core submissions made by the petitioners that academic merit alone should be the criteria for admission to Medical Postgraduate Courses. Be that as it may, the argument is based on Clause 9(4) of the Postgraduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2018 which provides that for in-service candidates, an incentive up to 10% of the marks for service in remote and/or difficult areas or rural areas may be given by the Government/Competent Authority."

Clarifying that the petitioners cannot claim a right to incentive, the bench dismissed the petitioner and further noted, "A reading of Clause 9(4) of the Amendment Regulations, 2018 would indicate that it is only an enabling provision conferring discretionary powers on the Government/Competent Authority for granting incentive to remote/difficult/rural area services for admission to the Courses. The petitioners cannot claim a right to incentive, based on Clause (4). Furthermore, Ext.P9 Prospectus also provides weightage for Rural Service and Difficult Rural Service from 2% to 5%. The petitioners cannot as of right claim that a sub quota should be provided exclusively for candidates with Rural/Difficult Rural area service."

To read the court order, click on the link below.