Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With TN Govt Order Giving Preference To In-Service Doctors In PG Admission

Justice GR Swaminathan observed that a challenge to the above GO had already been decided by a division bench. The division bench had also observed that no arbitrariness can be made out from the data pertaining to only one academic year.

The data in respect of the first year of implementation of policy cannot be relied upon or referred to in these proceedings. The principle of constructive res judicata will also come into play. The petitioners may have to see how the policy works itself out during the academic year 2022-2023 before they can avail the liberty. Based exclusively on the result of this academic year 2021-2022, the petitioner cannot mount a challenge. Even when such a challenge is made, all the defences of the respondents will be intact.

The GO was challenged particularly on two grounds- firstly, the government had directed 50% of the State quota seats in PG courses (MD, MS,MDS) degrees in Tamil Nadu government colleges and government seats in self financing colleges affiliated to TN MGR Medical University be reserved for In Service Doctors serving in Government Institutions. Secondly, the GO provides that the remaining 50% of the seats be open for both in service and non service candidates

The division bench had upheld the power of the State to provide for separate quota for in-service Doctors as a separate source of entry in medical education, while filling up Post Graduate seats in medical education, from within the State Quota. With respect to providing additional weightage of marks for in service doctors on the basis of their place of work in remote/difficult/hilly/rural areas, it was held that the State is well within its right to do so, in view of regulation 9(4) of MCI Regulations.

The petitioners argued that the division bench had not foreclosed the issue and had provided sufficient room for renewing the challenge.

The court however observed that Division Bench did not want to interfere in the first year of implementation of the GO as it wanted to observe how the issue would pan out. In the present petition also, the petitioners had relied on the data only pertaining to 2022-2023. This data could not be the basis for maintaining this writ petition. The court therefore held that the liberty granted by the division bench could be invoked only if the petitioner could show disproportional impact.

One swallow does not make a summer. The results drawn from one academic year which could have very well been placed before the Hon'ble Division Bench cannot lead me to any conclusion. There is also no scope for axiomatic or a priori reasoning. The argument has to necessarily proceed only from concrete materials and data. The data in respect of the first year of implementation of policy cannot be relied upon or referred to in these proceedings.

In such view of the matter, the court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Dr. A Packia Raj and others v. State and others

Case No: W.P(MD)No .13028 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 387