Vacant NEET PG 2021 Seats of In-service quota to be converted to Open category: MP HC

Bhopal: Denying compartmentalization of unfilled vacant in-service quota seats, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently made it clear that vacant seats in the 30 per cent in-service quota can be converted to the pool of open/direct category for the purpose of filling up.

Such a decision was taken by the HC bench comprising of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice D.D. Bansal after they referred to Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 (Admission Rules) and noted that the word 'vacancies' has been used in there for referring to all the vacancies.

"A minute reading of sub Rule (1) and (2) of Rule 14 leaves no room for any doubt that 'vacancies' means all the vacancies and not vacancies confined to 'in-service candidates'. Putting it differently, in sub Rule (2) of Rule 14 it is mentioned about vacancies of sub Rule (1) of Rule 14(1). At the cost of repetition, in our considered opinion, the vacancy of sub Rule (1) relates to the entire set of vacancies of all subjects available in Government and Private Medical Colleges as well as in Dental Hospitals. Thus, we are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners," noted the bench.

As per the existing rules, Madhya Pradesh has a separate entry for In-service doctors with 30 per cent reservation in the Post Graduate Medical courses. The process of admission in the Post Graduate Courses are governed by statutory Rules namely Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 (Admission Rules) made under Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik (Prevesh Ka Viniyaman Evam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (Adhiniyam).

The in-service doctors approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court and prayed that seats falling under 30% reserved compartment earmarked for 'in-service candidates' the unfilled seats of SC/ST/OBC/EWS category cannot be converted/shifted to the pool of open/direct category till they are first offered to general/unreserved category candidates within the same pool/compartment of 'in-service candidates' by exhausting the list in view of combined reading of Rule 4 and Rule 14 of the Admission Rules.

The counselor for the petitioner doctors, who are the general category candidates, contended that if reserved category posts in their pool/compartment are not filled up, same should go down to the petitioners in the same compartment. Pointing out that some of the candidates became eligible only during the mop-up round of counselling, the counselor argued that if the unfilled seats of the same pool are not transferred to open/direct category, these petitioners may also get a chance for the seats they are entitled to.

The contentions of the petitioner doctors' counsel is threefold. They argued firstly, it is argued that 'in-service candidates' have a separate source of entry. As per Rule 4 and 14 of the Admission Rules, the unfilled seats of reserved category in-service compartment cannot be shifted to open/direct category unless the requirement of Rule 4 and 14 (2) of the Admission Rules is satisfied. Intermingling of seats between two compartments is impermissible. Secondly, in absence of any express enabling provision, the action of respondents in shifting the seats of one compartment (in-service category to another namely open/direct category) is bad-in-law. Thirdly, the Admission Rules must be given purposive interpretation. It is a beneficent provision for in-service candidates and therefore, intention of law makers cannot be ignored.

On the other hand, the Government submitted the data of PG medical admission in the State quota seats and referring to the same, the counsel for the Government urged that that reservation has been applied on total seats and then divided into open and in-service pool. The Admission Rules permit reservation for different category of candidates and no candidate is put to disadvantage and it was ensured that a seat of specific category is converted to other category only when that particular category candidate is not available in the merit list as provided in Rule 4(1), further contended the State.

Taking note of all the contentions of both the parties, the High Court bench referred to the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 (Admission Rules) and noted, "The pivotal question needs consideration in this case is whether the unfilled reserved vacancies are required to be filled up vertically/ category wise or the same can be filled up by taking into account the entire vacancies ?"

The bench noted that it was the contention of the petitioner doctors that there are two watertight compartments of 'in-service candidates' and 'open candidates'. Unfilled reserved category vacancies of in-service compartment needs to be vertically filled up from within the candidates of this category

However, the bench rejected this contention as it took note of the fact that a microscopic reading of the amended rule Rule 14(1) and (2) of the Admission Rules would clearly show that the lawmakers intended to include all the vacancies while using the word 'Rikhtiyan' and it was not confined to In-Service candidates only.