Madras HC Division Bench upholds Incentive marks for In-service Doctors

The bench of Justices Paresh Upadiyay and SKS Kurup confirmed the order dated January 19 of Justice M Dhandapani, while dismissing an appeal from Dr Parkaviyan today, reports PTI.

Originally, assailing Sl. No 29 (c) of the impugned prospectus issued by the State for filling up the seats in the post-graduate degree courses in medicine under the 50 per cent State quota, in and by which in-service candidates, who had put in service in difficult terrains in the State, were permitted to carry on their weightage marks not only for the reserved seats, but also to compete for the seats under the open category by carrying with them the weightage marks, the writ petitions were filed.

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that in its January 19 order, the single judge bench of Justice M Dhandapani had directed the State to allocate 50 per cent of the super-speciality seats in DM/Mch courses in government medical colleges to in-service doctors in Tamil Nadu for the current academic year 2021-2022, as per its order dated November 7, 2020.

Also Read: Provide 50 percent Reservation to In-Service Doctors in Super-Speciality Courses: Madras HC tells Govt

The single judge bench had held in its order that in the backdrop of the legal position, coupled with the reasonable and intelligible differentia in classifying the two groups of persons aspiring for PG admission in the State-wise quota, the court was of the considered view that not only the State was empowered to create channels of selection by prescribing quotas for open category and in-service candidates, but also it was within its powers to lay down norms with regard to the basis in which the merit list was to be prepared for determining the inter se merit of the candidates competing in the two different categories.

The State could not be precluded from exercising the powers conferred on it by the Constitution, more especially Entry 25 List III of the Constitution would be denuding the State of its power, which has been given to it by the Constitution and as approved by the Supreme Court, the judge had held.

Hence, "this court is of the considered view that the norms prescribed under Sl No 29 (c) of the prospectus and the consequential GOs issued in October 2021 for selection of candidates to the PG medical degree courses under the State-wise quota does not suffer the vice of any illegality, irrationality, arbitrariness or perversity and the same is founded on well guided principles and application of law and therefore, the said norm does not require any interference at the hands of this court," the judge had said on January 19.

Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred the present appeals before the Division bench.

The bench confirmed the orders of the single judge after listening to the arguments of Suhirith Parthasarathy for the appellant, Additional Advocate-General J Ravindran for the State and senior advocate P Wilson for the inservice doctors.

During the hearing, the Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran and senior counsel P. Wilson, Isaac Mohanlal and E. Manoharan, representing various government in-service candidates, had argued that the in-service doctors were given incentive marks so that they get encouraged to serve in remote and hilly areas. They further contended that without this provision, the public healthcare in rural areas would get weakened and medical facilities would become a dream for people residing in those localities.

The AAG further submitted before the bench that the Government didn't provide any incentive marks to doctors serving in the urban areas and only those serving in hilly areas were g8ven 10 marks per year, doctors serving in difficult areas in plain were given 9 marks per year and those serving in remote areas and classified rural were given 8 marks and 5 marks per year consecutively.

"The incentive marks are given as a recognition to doctors who forego all comforts during the prime of their youth and come forward to serve the people in remote localities," the AAG argued.

As per the latest media report by The Hindu, the division bench has clarified that the verdict would apply only to the admissions for the current academic year and it would be open to the litigants for filing fresh cases in the future.

The bench also held that it would not be appropriate for the court to interfere with the Government's decision at the present stage.