PG Medical Admissions: Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With Grant Of Incentive Marks To In-Service Candidates In Open Category

Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu noted that unless policy decision was shown to be manifestly arbitrary, the courts would be extremely slow in interfering especially when the matter was concerning the academic and educational field.

“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,” the court said.

The court was hearing challenge to Regulation 9(4) of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 insofar as it permits the State Governments to provide incentives to in-service candidates participating in the open category of Postgraduate Medical Admission Counselling.

Challenge was also made to the Government Order by which in-service candidates were 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 and by which 50% seats in 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 were exclusively allotted for in-service doctors.

It was contended that the reservation was arbitrary, unreasonable, and disproportionate. It was argued that reserving 50% of seats for in-service candidates from the State quota does not satisfy the test of proportionality and that the weightage of marks given to in-service candidates could not be applied for admission from the open category.

Advocate General R Shunmughasundaram, on the other hand, argued that the policy was already upheld by the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v Union of India. It was also submitted that if weightage of marks is not allowed, it would result in selecting candidates merely on the basis of a written exam.

The National Medical Commission, represented by Mrs. Subharanjani Anandd, however, submitted that in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association Case, the Supreme Court had observed that Regulation 9(4) of the Regulations, 2000 is an enabling provision and that it confers discretion, however does not mandate grant of incentive and/or reservation. It was submitted that Regulation 9(4) of the Regulations, 2000 is within the legislative competence of the Medical Council of India and that the present policy of the State amounted to double reservation, dilution of merit and discrimination.

The in-service doctors, represented by Senior Counsel P Wilson, submitted that once the regulations have been upheld by the Supreme Court in a matter pertaining to the very same issue, it was not legally tenable to challenge the same provision as it would amount to reopening an already settled issue. It was submitted that the merit of a candidate has to be adjudged keeping in mind the background, disadvantages, barriers, and difficulties they face while competing against the other categories. Thus, it was argued that having the same criteria for candidates who work 14-16 hours a day and urban non-service candidates who can devote entire time to study, was discrimination in its truest sense.

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. The court also noted that the policy helps in bringing the in-service doctors on par with non-working candidates and those working in urban areas as those serving in rural, hilly and remote areas will not have appropriate facilities and time. 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.

“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,” the court noted.

The court relied on 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 noted that Regulation 9(4) focused on the “merit” of the candidate and not the “academic merit” as it existed earlier.

Thus, finding no illegality in the provision, the court disposed of the petitions.

Case Title: Dr. Gurubaran and others v. Union of India and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 230

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram Advocate General assisted by Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader and Ms.A.G.Shakeena, Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.M.Sneha, Mr.P.G.Santhosh Kumar Senior Panel Counsel, Mrs.Subharanjani Anandh, Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Counsel for Mr.Richardson Wilson for the applicants (proposed respondents), Mr.E.Manoharan for the applicant (proposed respondent)