HC issues notice on 50 percent reservation for Inservice doctors in Tamil Nadu
Chennai: The Madras High Court has sought to know the response of the State and other concerned authorities regarding a plea by several doctors who have challenged the 50% reservation granted to the in-service doctors for admission to post-graduate degree and diploma courses in Tamil Nadu Government medical colleges and government quota seats in self-financing medical colleges affiliated to...
Chennai: The Madras High Court has sought to know the response of the State and other concerned authorities regarding a plea by several doctors who have challenged the 50% reservation granted to the in-service doctors for admission to post-graduate degree and diploma courses in Tamil Nadu Government medical colleges and government quota seats in self-financing medical colleges affiliated to Dr. MGR Medical University.
While considering the plea that has challenged Clause 29 (c) of the October 6, 2021 prospectus, the Madras High Court bench comprising of Justice N.Anand Venkatesh, has recently issued notice regarding the matter.
The bench has further directed the counsel appearing for the Government to take instructions and report before the court. The matter has been posted for further hearing on November 1.
The issue concerns the Sl.No.29(C) of the Prospectus, which provides that 50% of seats in the State Government will be exclusively allotted to in-service candidates and even in the remaining 50% in the Open Category, the in-service candidates are entitled to participate and they will also have the advantage of weightage that is given for doctors from remote/difficult/hilly areas.
Arguing that the relevant clause of the Prospectus clearly discriminates the non-service candidates from those doctors who are in-service of the Government, twelve doctors have challenged the clause before the High Court.
Medical Dialogues has been reporting about the matter of whether 50 percent reservation to government doctors and in-service candidates in PostGraduate medical (PG medical) and super-specialty courses should be allowed. The issue came after the state of Tamil Nadu, on November 7, 2020 had allocated 50 percent of postgraduate super-specialty seats in government medical colleges to in-service government doctors from the academic year 2020-2021.
After going through several legal conflicts and despite the central government's opposition regarding the reservation of seats in super specialty and Post Graduate medical courses (PG Medical Courses), the State Government through a couple of Government Orders had reserved at least 50 percent of PG Medical seats for in-service government doctors, while in the other circular, it had reserved the entire 50 percent state quota in super specialty courses for in-service candidates.
However, the reservation in the Super Specialty courses came to be challenged before the Supreme Court and the top court had ruled last year that there cannot be any 50 percent reservation in super-specialty courses for the academic year 2020-2021.
Also Read: NO in service quota for Super Speciality admissions this year, Holds Supreme Court
As per the latest media report by Live Law, Advocate Suhrith Parthasarathy, while representing the doctors, has contended that the extent of reservation stipulated under Clause 29 (c) dilutes any concept of merit in admissions and is also 'unjust, unfair, arbitrary and discriminatory and, ultra vires the Constitution of India.'
"In not exclusively ear-marking the selection for admission in the open category to non-service candidates and in granting weightage in the form of incentive marks to in-service candidates in the open category as well, the Respondent No. 1 to 3 have acted in an arbitrary, unreasonable, and disproportionate manner .... In permitting in-service candidates to apply in the 'open category' and further awarding incentive marks to those in-service candidates, the Respondents have taken away the very spirit and essence of an 'open category'," stated the Plea.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in State of TN v. T Dhilipkumar, where the court had directed the State for conducting a study for the assessment regarding what should be the extent of reservation given to the in-service candidates, and had directed the State to reduce it below 50%, the doctors in their plea have further claimed that no such assessment was conducted by the State.
It has further been contended in the petition that the State has continued providing such reservation without assessing if 50% reservation was even necessary for achieving the objective of the measure.
To the Petitioners' best knowledge, it is submitted that the State of Tamil Nadu is the only State in the country to have such an arbitrary policy of reserving 50% seats for in-service candidates and of further awarding those in-service candidates who apply in the 'open category' incentive marks, without so much as assigning any reason to justify the introduction of such a policy", the plea filed by the doctors further stated.
Submitting that even though the top court has confirmed the power of the State Governments for granting reservation to in-service doctors, the state hasn't used such power in a "just, fair, and reasonable manner", the plea mentioned, "The allocation of the said 50% is also grossly disproportionate and in violation of well-settled principles of constitutional law."
Pointing out that the present Prospectus has mentioned that the Open category would be open to both service and in-service doctors and the seats would be filled as per the rules set by the Hon'ble Thiru. A. Selvam, High Court Judge led Committee, the petition further claims that back in 2019 the category-wise list that the State had published, is also defective.
"It fails to consider a host of factors such as social and economic conditions, geographical location, accessibility and similar other relevant considerations, and accordingly, several PHCs and Government Hospitals listed under the category of Difficult Areas in Hills, Difficult Areas in Plains, Remote Area and Rural Areas in Annexures I to IV of the GO have been wrongly included," submitted the doctors as they urged the Court for quashing the Clause 29 (c) of the Prospectus.
To read the High Court order, click on the link below.
