PG Medical Admissions: Madras HC dismisses pleas challenging GO reserving seats for In-Service doctors

Madurai: Observing that a division bench of Madras High Court has already decided on a similar plea, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court on Monday dismissed a plea challenging the Tamil Nadu Government Order allowing In-service reservation for Postgraduate medical admission.

Denying to agree with the contention of the petitioner doctors who alleged that the concerned government order has an arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate effect, the HC bench comprising of Justice GR Swaminathan also referred to the data regarding the admission in the first year of the implementation of the G.O.

The bench observed, "The data in respect of the first year of implementation of policy cannot be relied upon or referred to in these proceedings. The principle of constructive res judicata will also come into play. The petitioners may have to see how the policy works itself out during the academic year 2022-2023 before they can avail the liberty. Based exclusively on the result of this academic year 2021-2022, the petitioner cannot mount a challenge. Even when such a challenge is made, all the defences of the respondents will be intact."

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

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. Later the In-service Reservation was also upheld by the Division bench of the Madras High Court.

However, recently few doctors moved to the High Court again praying for directions to quash the concerned Government Order as arbitrary, unjust, illegal and ultra vires the Constitution of India and to direct the State to treat "in service" and "non-service" candidates on par in making admissions to Post Graduate Degree seats in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges.

These doctors had challenged the G.O on these two reasons:

(a) The Government had directed that 50% of the State quota seats in the PG (MD, MS and MDS) degree courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges and Government seats in Self-Financing Medical Colleges affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University be reserved for inservice doctors serving in Government Health Institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu.

(b) It had also directed that the remaining 50% which is the Open category will be open to both in-service and non-service candidates and that seats will be filled up based on the marks already defined or such criteria to be defined by the 1st respondent from time to time as per the decision of the Committee headed by Hon'ble Thiru.Justice A.Selvam, High Court Judge (Retd.).

Although almost a dozen case laws had been cited and relied upon, the bench observed, "But I am of the view that it is not necessary to go into any of them. This is for a very simple reason. The validity of the impugned government order was considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.Nos.93 and 94 of 2022. The two fold grievances now projected in this writ petition were raised before the Hon'ble Division Bench also. The Hon'ble Division Bench declined to interfere. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held that the State does have power to provide for separate quota for in-service Doctors, as a separate source of entry in medical education, while filling up Post Graduate seats in medical education, from within the State Quota. As regards providing additional weightage of marks by the State in the merit of in-service Doctors on the basis of their place of work in remote/difficult/hilly/rural areas, it was held that the State is well within its right to do so, in view of regulation 9(4) of MCI Regulations, with specific reference to proviso thereto."

While the Additional Advocate General argued on the maintainability of the plea, the counsel for the petitioners contended that the Hon'ble Division Bench did not completely foreclose the issue ; it had provided sufficient room for renewing the challenge. At this outset, the petitioners' counsel referred to Paragraph No.15 of the judgment dated 27.01.2022.

Perusing the same Paragraph, the bench took note of the fact that the by filing an RTI, the first petitioner was informed that for Post Graduate degree/Diploma Courses in Government Medical Colleges, 294 non-service doctors and 859 in-service doctors were allotted during the Tamil Nadu Counseling in 2021-2022 session. Therefore, by contrasting the aforesaid figures with the position obtained during the preceding three years i.e.  2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, the petitioners contended that the implementation of the impugned government order has an arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate effect.

Addressing this argument, the bench noted, "I decline to go into this contention for the simple reason that the Hon'ble Division Bench clearly stated that the primary reason for noninterference was that the academic year 2021-2022 was the first year of implementation of the impugned policy. It is relevant to note here that the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench was pronounced on 27.01.2022. Quite a few months before the said date, the admissions had already been finalized. It is obvious from a reading of the entire paragraph 15 of the order dated 21.01.2022 that the Hon'ble Division Bench did not want to interfere in the first year of implementation of the impugned G.O."

"The Hon'ble Division Bench wanted to see as to how the implementation would pan out in future. Therefore, the data collected in respect of the first year of implementation of the policy cannot be the basis for maintaining this writ petition. The liberty granted by the Hon'ble Division Bench can be invoked only if the petitioners can show a pattern of disproportionate impact. One swallow does not make a summer. The results drawn from one academic year which could have very well been placed before the Hon'ble Division Bench cannot lead me to any conclusion. There is also no scope for axiomatic or a priori reasoning. The argument has to necessarily proceed only from concrete materials and data," it further observed.

Therefore, clarifying that the data in respect of the first year of implementation of policy cannot be relied upon or referred to in these proceedings, the bench noted, "The principle of constructive res judicata will also come into play. The petitioners may have to see how the policy works itself out during the academic year 2022-2023 before they can avail the liberty." With these observations, the bench dismissed the petition.

To read the order, click on the link below.

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/madras-hc-in-service-185202.pdf

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