NEET-PG| Candidates With Rural/Difficult Area Service Can't Claim Sub Quota As A Right : Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that NEET-PG candidates engaging in Rural Area service or Difficult Rural Area service cannot claim an exclusive sub-quota as a matter of right. 

Justice N. Nagaresh observed that this was more so since the Prospectus for Admission to Medical Postgraduate Degree Courses 2021-2022 provided for 2% service weightage for Rural Area service and 5% for Difficult Rural Area service.

"Ext.P9 Prospectus also provides weightage for Rural Service and Difficult Rural Service from 2% to 5%. The petitioners cannot as of right claim that a sub quota should be provided exclusively for candidates with Rural/Difficult Rural area service."

The petitioners were Assistant Surgeons in Government Primary/Community Health Centers hailing from a rural area and a difficult rural area respectively. 

Aspiring to pursue MD, they appeared in the NEET PG 2021 and secured All India Rank 40151 and 22849 respectively. The petitioners thereby applied for the State Quota seats.

The Prospectus earmarked 10% of State quota seats for Government Service candidates and split up the service quota among three different services. It also provided for awarding weightage for the number of years in service.

Alleging that these clauses in the Prospectus offend merit and go against the law laid down by the Apex Court, they moved the High Court. 

They further prayed that the Prospectus to the extent to which it does not prescribe reservation for candidates who have served in rural/difficult rural areas be declared bad in law and unsustainable. 

Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj appearing for the petitioners argued that Clause splitting up in-service quota seats among three service categories is illegal since it waters down merit criteria. 

It was pointed out that merit alone should be the criterion for admission to Medical PG Courses even under in-service quota and that the most meritorious candidates in Government Service should be admitted to Medical PG irrespective of their service category.

Additionally, the counsel pointed out that the Post Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations provide incentives to in-service candidates serving in Difficult Areas and Rural Areas. However, the State had not yet made provision for such incentives, which was argued to be arbitrary and unsustainable.

Conversely, Government Pleader P.G. Pramod argued that service quota was reintroduced in the light of the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench judgment in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. UoI, where it was held that it is within the legislative competence of the State to introduce a service quota in PG Medical Degree Courses.

After hearing both sides, the Judge observed that in view of Entry 25 of List-III of the Constitution, the State Legislature is competent to introduce a service quota for PG Medical Courses.

Justice Nagaresh added that Service Quota is provided considering the requirement of Post Graduate Medical Officers in each Service under the Government.

"Such Quota is provided more in public interest than in the individual interest of candidates getting admitted under the quota. The State will therefore be amply justified in splitting up in-service quota seats as per the requirements in various eligible services."

As such, it was concluded that only the most academically meritorious among each service will be selected for admission. Therefore, it cannot be said that by splitting up of seats, academic merit has been given a go bye. 

The Court also noted that the petitioner's prayer for service weightage for candidates in Rural or Difficult Rural Areas was contradictory to their primary argument that academic merit alone should be the criteria for admission to Medical Postgraduate Courses. 

Further, it was asserted that Clause 9(4) of Amendment Regulations was only an enabling provision conferring discretionary powers on the Competent Authority to grant incentive to remote/difficult/rural area services for admission to the Courses. However, the Judge recorded that the petitioners cannot claim a right to incentive.

Therefore, the Court dismissed the plea finding no merit in it. 

Case Title: Dr. Jibin C.P & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 58

Click Here To Read/Download The Order