LexDR. SNEHELATA PATNAIK AND ORS. versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DR. SNEHELATA PATNAIK AND ORS.
A
v.
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.
JANUARY 22, 1992
[M.H. KANIA, CJ., T.K. THOMMEN AND P.B. SAWANT,JJ.]
B
Education--Admission to post-graduation courses in Medical
Sciences-Non-availability of qual({ied doctors for
rural
service--Suggestions of Supreme Court/or iradication.
The writ petition and the SLPs were di~missed by this Court's C
-~
order dated 5.12.1991.
Taking judicial notice of the fact that the rural area·s had
suffered for non-availability of qualified doctors, this Court sug-
gested that some preference might have to be given .to in-service
candidates who have done five years of rural service.
· D
HELD: 1.0·1. The authorities might well consider giving weightage
upto a maximum of 5 per cent of marks in favour of in-service
candidates who have done rural service for five years or more. The
,.;)
actual percentage would certainly have to be left to the authorities.
~7~
E
1.02.
This might act as an incentive to doctors wllo had done
their graduation to do rural service for some time. [326 E]
1.03.
The observation in Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Others v. /W>lilal
Nehnt Medical College. Allahabad and others, [1986] 3 SCC page 727
F
at 740 to the effect that no weightage shquld be given to the candi-
date for rural service rendered by him so far as admissions to post-
graduate courses are concerned is not .the ratio of the judgment but
a mere observation. (336 H-337 A)
1.04.
The suggestions do not in any way confer any legal
G ·
right on in-service students who have done rural service nor do ·they
have any application to the selection of the students upto the end of
the year. [337 BJ
·
Dr Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Moti/al Ne'1111 Medical College, Allahabad
& Ors., (1986) 3 sec 727 at page 740, distinguished.
H
335
336
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1992] 1 S.C.R.
A
ORIGINAL nJRISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 844 of 1991.
(Under Article 3i of the Constitution of India)
WITH
B
S.L.P. NOS. 16475 & 17635of1991.
N.S. Hegde, Amrendra Bal and J.R. Das for the Petitioners.
Soresh Roy, Ms. Kirti Mishra and P.N. Mishra for the Respondents.
C
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
E
F
G
H
KANIA, CJ. We have already dismissed the writ petition and spe-
cial leave petitjons by our order dated 5.12.1991. We would, however,
like to make a suggestion to the authorities for their consideration that
some preference might be given to in-service candidates who have done
five years of rural service. In the first place, it is possible that the facilities
for keeping up with the latest medical literature might not be available to
. such in-service candidates and the nature of their work makes it difficult
for them to acquire knowledge about very recent medical research which
the candidates who have come after freshly passing their graduation· ex-
amination might have. Moreover, it might act as an incentive to doctors
who had done their graduation to do.noral service for some time. Keeping_
in mind the fact that the rural areas had. suffered grievously for non-
availability of qualified doctors giving such incentive would be quite in
order. Leamed counsel for the respondents has, however, drawn our atten-
tion to the decision of a Division Bench of two learned judges of this
Court in /Jr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Mori/al Nehm Meclica/ College,
Allahabad & Ors., (1986) 3 SCC page 727 at 740. It has been observed
there that merely by offering a weightage of 15 per cent to a doctor for
three years rural service would not bring about a migration of doctors
from the urban to rural areas. They observed that if you want to produce
doctors who are MD or MS, particularly surgeons, who are going to
operate upon human beings, it is of utmost importance that the selection
should be based on merit. Learned Judges have gone on to observe that no
weightage should be given to a candidate for rnral service rendered by
him so far as admissions to post-graduate courses are concerned (see para
12 at page 741).
In our opinion, this observation certainly does not constitute the
ratio of the decision. The decision is in no way dependent upon these
•'
-(·
DR. S. PATNAIK v. STATE [KANIA, Cl.]
337
observations. Moreover, those observations are ·in connection with All
India Selection and do not have equal force when applied to selection
from a single State. These observations, ho"".ever, suggest that the weigbtage
to be given must be the bare minimum requiredExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.