Cut-off dates are bound to cause hardship: SC denies plea by In-service doctors seeking extension

Although the bench refused to interfere in the matter, it gave liberty to the petitioner doctors to submit a representation to the concerned authorities.

"Any cut-off date is bound to cause some hardship and the court would be treading in the area of policy if it were to issue a judicial fiat for the extension of the cut-off date," noted the top court bench comprising of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath.

However, the bench also clarified, "On this aspect, particularly having regard to the individual hardships of the three petitioners, we leave it open to them to submit a representation to the authorities who may take a considered view of the matter."

The case concerned the petitioner doctors who are serving in the Rajasthan State Services and have been posted in remote, difficult or rural areas. On the other hand, even though the State policy recognizes graded incentive marks in PG medical admission for such doctors, for the current process of admissions such experience has to be reckoned as gained by them up to 30.09.2021.

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

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that the Jaipur bench of Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed the plea by several doctors seeking an extension of the cut-off date for considering their experience of service in rural and difficult areas from 30.09.2021 to 31.10.2021.

The dismissal came after the HC bench observed that granting of incentive marks to in-service candidates was a matter of policy and it mainly depended on the discretionary exercise of powers of the State Government.

"To begin with grant of incentive itself is a policy matter and based on the discretion of State authorities. Any extension for considering the experience is also part of such discretionary exercise of the powers. Unless it is shown that such discretion is exercised arbitrarily or malafidely this Court would not interfere in such policy matters," the bench noted as it dismissed the petitions.

The bench also took note of the fact that ordinarily such experience would be considered upto 30th April of the relevant year, and initially it was same for the 2021-2022 academic year as well. However initially on account of spread of corona virus the conducting of NEET examination itself had to be postponed, which was finally held on 11.09.2021. Still, the counselling process got delayed due to the pending legal complexities before the Supreme Court and taking cognizance of such developments, the Rajasthan Government extended the time limit from 30.04.2021 to 30.09.2021.

"In our view the same is principally a matter of policy and depends on the discretionary exercise of powers of the State Government. To begin with grant of incentive itself is a policy matter and based on the discretion of State authorities. Any extension for considering the experience is also part of such discretionary exercise of the powers. Unless it is shown that such discretion is exercised arbitrarily or malafidely this Court would not interfere in such policy matters," the bench noted at this outset.

Dismissing the appeals, the bench further noted, "There is yet another angle to this issue. The perusal of the State policy would show that the incentive is granted to ensure that sufficient numbers of doctors are available to serve in remote, difficult and rural areas. On account of difficult living conditions in such areas these doctors would also suffer a degree of handicap in their preparations of PG medical entrance examinations. To offset such handicap incentive is being offered. Once examination is over, the candidate cannot complain of being disadvantaged in making the preparations as compared to the other candidates. The cut-off date of 30.09.2021 prescribed by the State Government therefore requires no interference."

Later, the Division bench of the Rajasthan High court at its principal seat at Jodhpur had also dismissed the plea and reiterated the similar views.

Challenging this, the doctors approached the Supreme Court. While considering the matter on Thursday, the top court bench after taking note of the submissions by the petitioners' counsel noted, "we do not consider it appropriate, considering conventional yardsticks and precedents governing the subject matter, for this court to exercise its discretion and extend the cut-off date of 30 September 2021."

"Any cut-off date is bound to cause some hardship and the court would be treading in the area of policy if it were to issue a judicial fiat for the extension of the cut-off date," further opined the bench.

However, the bench also noted, "Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the three petitioners are the only candidates of the batch who are excluded and all the other persons of their batch would be entitled to the 10% weightage which is prescribed for in-service candidates, save and except for the petitioners, who would risk losing the benefit because their appointments took place on 5 October 2018. Hence, the hardship which has been pleaded is that the petitioners would lose out only because of the fact that they would be five days beyond the cut-off."

Giving liberty to the doctors to approach the appropriate authorities the bench further ordered, "On this aspect, particularly having regard to the individual hardships of the three petitioners, we leave it open to them to submit a representation to the authorities who may take a considered view of the matter. Save and except for the grant of liberty in the above terms, we are not interfering with the order of the High Court. The special leave petition shall stand disposed off."

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

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-in-service-1-170399.pdf