Incentive marks to in-service candidates in PG Medical admissions laudable, benevolent: Madras HC refuses to interfere with policy

Chief Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu held that the court need not interfere with a policy decision of the State government when the objective behind the grant of incentive marks was “laudable and benevolent” and such practice was not barred by any statute, rule or regulation.

The court further clarified that the courts would be extremely slow in interfering with the policy decision, that too, concerning the academic and educational field, unless it is shown that the policy decision is against the statutes or is manifestly arbitrary.

The matter was brought to the court by some PG medical seat aspirants who filed writ petitions seeking to declare the regulation 9 (4) of the postgraduate medical education regulations, 2000 as illegitimate and illegal.

Apart from the issuance of a writ of declaration declaring Regulation 9(4) of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 as illegitimate, illegal and ultra vires the National Medical Commission Act 2019 and the Constitution of India insofar as it permits State Governments to provide incentives to in-service candidates participating in the Open Category of Post Graduate Medical Admission Counselling, the petitioner doctors also challenged the Government Order in which in-service candidates are allowed to participate in the open competition category with the advantage of additional weightage marks allotted to them for serving in rural, remote and/or difficult areas, so also by the direction mandating that 50% of the State quota seats in the Post Graduate (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 exclusively allocated for in-service doctors serving in Government Health Institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu.

Calling the policy as 'illegitimate', Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of his submissions, canvassed the proposition that reservation of 50% in favour of in-service doctors is arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate, and does not satisfy the test of proportionality.

The counsel further argued that the weightage marks given to in-service candidates cannot be applied for admission from the open category (other than seats reserved for in-service candidates).

On the other hand, Advocate General R Shunmughasundaram, argued that Regulation 9(4) of the Regulations, 2000 mandates that a merit list has to be prepared on the basis of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) marks for both All India and State Quotas for the Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses, adding that the policy was already upheld by the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v Union of India.

It was further submitted that if weightage marks given as per Regulation 9(4) of the Regulations, 2000 is not allowed to be taken into consideration while competing in the open category, it would result in selecting candidates merely based on the marks obtained in the written examination, namely NEET, alone.

However, Subharanjani Anandh, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent/National Medical Commission, submitted that Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association (supra) held that an interpretation of Regulation 9(4) of the Regulations, 2000 that there can be no reservation or separate source of entry created by the State for in-service doctors is erroneous.

"Regulation 9(4) of the Regulations, 2000 is an enabling provision. It confers discretion, however does not mandate grant of incentive and/or reservation. The challenge to Regulation 9(4) of the Regulations, 2000 is misconceived because it is not vague. It provides minimum marks for weightage and ceiling of 30%. Regulation 9(4) of the Regulations, 2000 is within the legislative competence of the Medical Council of India. De hors Regulation 9(4) of the Regulations,2000, the State always enjoyed power to create separate source of entry. It is further submitted that the present policy of the State of Tamil Nadu amounts to double reservation, dilution of merit and discrimination," NMC further said in its reply.

Meanwhile, Senior Counsel P Wilson, appearing for the in-service doctors said that once the Regulations, 2000 have been upheld by the Supreme Court in a matter pertaining to the very same issue, i.e., the provisions for separate source of entry for in service candidates and weightage marks, it is not legally tenable to challenge the same provision before this court, as it would amount to reopening an issue settled by the Apex Court. "It is incorrect on the part of the writ petitioners to suggest that the weightage marks given to in-service candidates was not considered by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association (supra)," Wilson submitted.

Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, (2022) 4 SCC 1, the counsel further submitted that the merit of a candidate has to be adjudged keeping in mind the background, disadvantages, barriers, difficulties they face while competing against the other categories.

In the present case, in-service candidates are employed full time and often work up to 14 to 16 hours a day in difficult areas with no access to libraries, internet, study resources, etc. Such candidates cannot compete in a straight race with an urban non-service student who may not even be working and who may be devoting his entire attention to preparing for the examination. To have one criteria for both these categories would be discrimination in its truest sense. Therefore, the exclusion of incentive marks obtained by an in-service candidate while determining his merit would be unconstitutional, unreasonable and contrary to the objectives of Regulation 9(4) of the Regulations, 2000.

Examining the issue, the Court noted that the policy of giving incentive marks was laudable and benevolent as it encouraged in-service candidates to offer their services to the State. It observed;

"The object is laudable and benevolent. 50% of the seats are surrendered for All-India Quota. In the said 50% All India Quota seats, no seats are earmarked for the in-service candidates. 50% seats are earmarked only in the 50% seats reserved for the State Quota. The in-service candidates are to be encouraged to offer their services and expertise to the State. The Government faces public health crisis. The effective and competent medical treatment is required to be made available in rural, hilly and remote areas. Inservice Doctors, who pursue higher studies, would naturally have to serve in Government Hospitals till superannuation. Another object of giving incentive marks is to bring them on par with the nonservice candidates and candidates working in urban areas. These in service Doctors, serving in rural, remote and hilly region do not have appropriate facilities and time. They gain practical experience and that also can form part of merit."

The court noted that the intent behind the policy was bonafide and that it helped the candidates to overcome the disadvantage suffered because of working in rural areas. It said;

" The very purpose and object of giving weightage to the candidates who have served in rural, remote or hilly areas is to overcome the disadvantage they suffered because of working in such difficult conditions and to enable them compete with the candidates who have directly, after their MBBS course, appeared for the NEET Postgraduate examination. It needs to be considered that those candidates who have rendered service in urban area are not given any weightage marks They are kept on par with other open category candidates. The weightage marks are only accorded to those who have worked in such rural, remote and hilly areas. The intent and object is clear, i.e., to bring them on par with the candidates who were not in service. The intent is bona fide."

Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Neil Aurelio Nunes v Union of India wherein it was held that merit cannot be reduced to narrow definitions of performance in an open competitive exam, the court clarified that Regulation 9(4) focused on the “merit” of the candidate and not the “academic merit” as it existed earlier.

Subsequently, the court found no illegality in the provision, and disposed of the petitions. It noted;

"The Courts would be extremely slow in interfering with the policy decision, that too, concerning the academic and educational field, unless it is shown that the policy decision is against the statutes or is manifestly arbitrary. The aforesaid discussion would demonstrate that the policy of providing incentive marks to the in-service candidates and adding the incentive marks for competing with the open category candidates is not barred by any statute, Rules or Regulations. Regulation 9(4) of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 and G.O.(Ms.) No.463, dated 07.11.2020 do not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness."

"In light of the above, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners. The writ petitions are disposed of. There will be no order as to costs."

To view the original order, click on the link below: