States have right to frame their service rules, says Supreme Court, refuses to quash preference to in service candidates in medial PG courses

Update: 2015-05-27 07:27 GMT
story

The vacation bench of the Supreme Court today refused to quash the order passed by Karnataka by which the State had given preference to five-year, four-year and three-year in-service candidates regarding admissions in medical PG courses.The Bench of Justices A K Sikri and U U Lalit refused to accept the petition challenging the order and said that it’s the prerogative of the State to...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The vacation bench of the Supreme Court today refused to quash the order passed by Karnataka by which the State had given preference to five-year, four-year and three-year in-service candidates regarding admissions in medical PG courses.

The Bench of Justices A K Sikri and U U Lalit refused to accept the petition challenging the order and said that it’s the prerogative of the State to frame their own service rules. The Supreme Court accordingly refused the petition filed by Medical Officer of Krishnarajendra Hospital, Mysuru Dr Saikumar V and Dr Pradeep Kumar HD of McGann Government Hospital and Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences who had challenged the rule passed by State with respect to admission to PG courses through Karnataka State PGET-2015.

Earlier, the Karnataka High Court too, through an order dated April 30, 2015had allowed the slab system for admission in the medical PG courses. Refusing to interfere with the order, the vacation bench observed, “We are not inclined to interfere with the HC’s order. The writ petition challenging the validity of the rules are already pending before the HC. The court should decide the matter on its own merit.”

 Appearing for other successful candidates, Senior Advocate Amit Singh Chadha and Advocate Reuben Jacob submitted to the Court that MCI’s rules permitted classification of the doctors, who were rendering their services at the government hospitals.

On the other hand, Advocate NIshant Patil, who had filed the petition submitted that if the classification system is allowed then it would deprive meritorious candidates.

The Court however did not agree with the contentions made by Advocate NIshant Patil and declined to accept the petition. It also did not agree to the contention that the State’s rule was in violation of judgment in Sudhir N and Ors Vs State of Kerala, wherein the Supreme Court had held that merit alone should be the sole criteria for the admissions to post graduate medical courses.

You may read more of our coverage on admissions in medical courses here.

Similar News