Supreme Court Directs MP Govt To Keep PG Medical Seat Vacant For Lady Doctor Who Served State's Tribal, Naxalite Villages

The Bench of Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant granted interim relief to Dr. Rajni Shende, who had approached the SC after being declined relief by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Essentially, she had initially approached the High Court claiming the incentivized benefit of 30% reservation and 30% incentive marks made available to all such In-Service doctors by the State of MP, however, she was denied the relief, and hence, she had moved to the SC.

The Supreme Court has also directed the State Government and National Medical Commission to respond by the 18th of April. The Petitioner was represented through Advocates Siddharth R Gupta assisted by Abhikalp P Singh & Shivam Singh Baghel before the Court.

The background of the case

Essentially, the State of MP has a policy of awarding 30% incentive marks along with a separate benefit of 30% reservation to all those doctors who have served the State for a minimum period of 3 years in the interior, remote, rural and difficult areas of the State.

It is her case that despite working in the backward tribal areas and Naxalite villages of the State of MP for more than 11 years, she was denied the benefit of this incentivized reservation and marks, on the sole ground that her No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the department was not forwarded in time to the counseling authority.

Against this backdrop, the lady doctor approached the High Court claiming applicable benefits which she was entitled to, under the applicable regulations and the admission rules made by the State.

She had pleaded before the High Court that the State Govt. gave more 'credence to externals than the essentials' and denied her the benefit on the technical ground of late forwarding the NOC by her employer department, for which she was not to be blamed.

However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed her Petition holding that the Petitioner did not register after procuring NOC from her employer department, the Department of Health, which was a prerequisite, for which reason therefore she cannot claim the incentivized benefits available to In-Service doctors.

Petitioner moves to the HC

Before the Supreme Court, the Counsel for the Petitioner-lady doctor contended that in view of the judgment of Charles K. Skaria & Ors. v. Dr. C. Mathew & Ors. and FCI v. Rimjhim, a technical requirement of NOC cannot come in the way of her claiming the substantive benefit.

Calling it a 'hard case' orally, the Bench directed for the interim reservation of a seat in her favour. This arrangement was made after the counsel for the Petitioner Siddharth R Gupta pointed out that despite Interim Orders passed by the High Court, the State had not kept a seat vacant.

It was submitted that the seat of her primary choice was still vacant at the time of the Mop-UP round of counseling in the State of MP. In view of the submissions made by the Petitioner's counsel, the Court passed the aforementioned Interim Order.