Kerala High Court Upholds NEET- PG Prospectus, Says State Can Decide Incentives To Be Offered To In-Service Candidates

The Kerala High Court has dismissed a batch of appeals that assailed the NEET- PG medical prospectus on the ground of incongruity with the Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulations regarding the incentives given to in-service candidates and a connected appeal seeking weightage to service candidates in the open merit quota.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly observed that this was a policy decision of the Government to regulate and meet up with the requirements in the respective departments so as to cater for the needs of the public at large and that the appellants had failed to make out any case of arbitrariness, unfairness, malafides or any other legal infirmities susceptible to have been interfered with by the court.

"In our view, it is for the State Government to decide the manner in which the service candidates are given the incentive, taking into account the larger public interest and the requirement of the respective departments of the Government in order to have the advantage of the services of Post Graduate Doctors."

The appellants were working as surgeons in government hospitals located in various rural areas, and thereby had rural area service to their credit. Having participated in the NEET PG 2021, they argued that since they were Government employees, they were entitled to get the benefit of service quota for Medical PG (MD) admission in colleges in the State as per clause 6 of the prospectus issued by the State for admission to Medical Post Graduate Degree Courses 2021-2022.

They further submitted that as per clause 9 (1) of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, students for PG Medical Courses shall be selected strictly on the basis of their academic merit. The appellants have also challenged clause 6.6.12 of the prospectus to the extent it states that 'the total service will be reckoned as on the date of notification for inviting application by CEE for admission to the courses'.

A Single Judge dismissed these petitions declaring that the proviso under Regulation 9(IV) of the MCI Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 does not confer a right on medical officers under the service of Government / public authorities to get weightage in the marks as an incentive for service in remote and/or difficult rural areas for the purpose of admission to postgraduate medical courses.

It was further held that the Government Order dated 15.01.2022 of the Health and Family Welfare Department and the prospectus attached to it supersede the Government Order dated 12.04.2018 whereby admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses for the academic year 2018-19 – PD quota reservation and award of incentive to Medical Officers who have service in remote and difficult areas / rural areas is streamlined by the State Government.

Therefore, it was ruled that it is beyond doubt that State can reserve Medical PG seats within the State quota for in-service candidates and also prescribed conditions for admission to those seats without compromising merit, and accordingly declared that the proviso under Regulation 9(IV) of the Regulations 2000 does not confer a right on Medical Officers under the services of Government / public authorities to get weightage in the marks as an incentive for service in remote and/or difficult areas for the purpose of admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses.

The appellants moved the Division Bench challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the Single Judge.  

The basic question raised by the appellants revolved around the prospectus issued by the State for the academic year 2021-2022. The reservation of seats for service candidates and eligibility for service quota are governed by clauses 6.6.11 and 6.6.1 of this prospectus. The said provisions of the prospectus make it clear that the State has fixed up a ratio of 45:45:10 between medical education service quota, health service quota and insurance medical service quota. It also fixed the eligibility for service quota in order to ensure that meritorious candidates are given admission in the service quota, also taking into account their merit in the rank list prepared in the NEET.

It was also clear that for 2021-2022, the Government had decided to give weightage for service, rural and difficult rural service, subject to a maximum of 30 % at the rate of 1%, 2% and 5% marks obtained for each year in service in the respective categories.

"So far as there is sufficient power vested with the State Government to decide the manner in which the incentives are given to the service candidates, the candidates are not at liberty to contend that they are entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Regulation 9(IV) of the Regulations 2000. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, Regulation 9(IV) of Regulations 2000 cannot be said to be binding absolutely on the State Government in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association (supra), wherein after considering Entry 25 of List III of the Constitution."

Therefore it was held that the contentions advanced by the appellants against the provisions of the prospectus did not have any force. Therefore, the Court found that clauses 6.6.11 and 6.6.12 of the prospectus for the academic year 2021-2022 were not in any manner bad, illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory.

Regarding the contention that the order issued by the State dated 12.04.2018 making reservation and award of incentive to Medical Officers who have service in remote and/or difficult areas / rural areas, the Court held that this prospectus was only for the academic year 2018-2019.

"When a new prospectus is issued by the State Government for the year 2021-2022, the appellant is not at liberty to insist that he should get the benefits conferred under an erstwhile Government Order provided for the period 2018-2019 alone."

Therefore, it was concluded that the State Government was granted the liberty to issue appropriate Orders providing incentives to the in-service candidates, and it is not for the appellants to dictate terms on the manner in which the benefits and incentives are to be granted by the Government for in-service candidates.

As such, the Court found no fault with the Single Judge dismissing the petitions upholding clauses 6.6.11 and 6.6.12 of the 2021-2022 prospectus issued by the State providing reservation for admission to the in-service candidates for P.G. Medical course, and the eligibility for service quota respectively. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.