STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN

Citation: [2016] 6 S.C.R. 571 · Decided: 16-08-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2016] 6 S.C.R. 571 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
v. 
DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN 
(Civil Appeal No. 8047of2016) 
AUGUST 16, 2016 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND DR. D.Y. 
CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
Education/Educational Institutions: 
Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education 
Regulatio11s, 2000 - Regn. 9 - Proviso to clause IV of Regn. 9 -
Legality of - Held: Regn. 9 is a complete Code - Proviso to clause 
IV of Regn. 9 predicates that in determining the merit of candidates 
in-service of Government/public Authority, weightage in the marks 
may be given as an incentive @ 10% of the marks obtained for 
each year of service in specified remote or difficult areas of the 
State upto the maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in NEET -
Provision for determining inter-se merit of the candidates including 
by giving weightage of marks as incentive to eligible in-service 
candidates who have worked in notified remote or difficult areas in 
the State, is just and reasonable - Liberal interpretation does 11ot 
provide for 30% reservation for in-service candidates, but only of 
giving a weightage in the form of i11centive marks as specified to 
the class of i11-service candidates, served in 11otified remote and 
difficult areas in the State - Mere hypothesis that the State 
Government may take a11 improper decisio11 whilst notifying the area 
as remote a11d difficult, ca11not be the basis to hold that Regn. 9 and 
in particular proviso to Clause IV is unreasonable - Thus, the 
procedure evolved in Regn. 9 in general and the proviso to Clause 
(IV) in particular is just, proper and reasonable and also fulfill the 
test of Art. J.I, bei11g in larger public interest - Further, the State 
Governments across the country are not in a position to provide 
health care facilities in remote and difficult areas in the State for 
want of Doctors - Provision in the form of granti11g weightage of 
marks was to give i11centive to the in-service candidates and to 
attract more graduates to join as Medical Officers in the State Health. 
Care Sector - On facts, High Court was justified in quashing the 
571 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
572 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 6 S.C.R. 
Government Order dated 28.02.2014 providing for reservation to 
in-service candidates, being violative of Regn. 9 as in force -
However, the operative direction by the High Court is modified to 
the effect that admission process for Academic Year 2016-17 
onwards to the Post Graduate Degree Course in the State should 
proceed as per Regn. 9 including by giving incentive marks to 
eligible in-service candidates in terms of proviso to Clause IV -
Constitution of India - Art 14. 
Disposing of the appeals and the writ petition, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The Regulation 9 of the Medical Council of India 
Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 is a complete· 
Code regarding the procedure to be followed for admissions to 
medical courses and a provision for determining inter-se merit of 
the candidates including by giving weightage of marks as incentive 
to eligible in-service candidates who have worked in notified 
remote or difficult areas in the State, is just, reasonable and 
necessary in larger public interest. [Para 39) (610-D-E] 
1.2 A priori, it mu.st be held that the relief claimed in the 
application filed by the State Government is an ingenious way to 
overcome the unconditional and unequivocal statement made 
before this Court on 12.05.2016. The State Government is obliged 
to adopt a procedure as is stipulated by the Central Act and 
Regulations framed thereunder and noted in the interim order 
dated 12.05.2016. Regulation 9(2) specifically deals with the 
process of "determining the academic merit" of the eligible 
candidates. Indeed, the primary consideration for determining 
the academic merit of the candidates is the marks obtained by 
the respective candidates in the common competitive test or 
centralized competitive test held by the concerned Authority. The 
third proviso in Regulation 9(2) is relevant. It envisages that in 
determining the merit, weightage may be given at the rate of 
lOo/o of the marks obtained for each year in-service in remote or 
difficult areas upto the maximum of 30% marks obtained in the 
common examination by the candidates. This Regulation does 
not envisage reservation of seats for the Post Graduate "Degree" 
Courses, unlike the express provision which is made in the same 
Regulation to provide reserv

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.