LexSUDHIR N. & ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015) 1 S.C.R. 884 SUDHIR N. & ORS. V. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 297-298 of 2015) JANUARY 12, 2015 [T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Kera/a Medical Officers' Admission to Post Graduate Courses under Service Quota Act, 2008 - s. 5(4) - C Admission to Post-graduate Medical Courses in-service quota - On the basis of seniority - Constitutional validity of - Held: As per regulation 9 of Medical Council of India Regulations, admission can be made strictly on the basis of inter-se academic merit of the candidates and not by taking D into account the service rendered by them in rural areas - Weightage of such service is permissible while determining the merit of the candidates only in terms of the third proviso to Regulation 9 - s. 5(4) in asmuch as it provides a basis for selection of candidates different from the one stipulated by E MC/ Regulations, it was beyond the legislative competence of the State legislature - Medical Council of India Act, 1956 - Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations of Medical Council of India, 2000 - Reg. 9 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 246 and Seventh Schedule List I, Entry 66 and List Ill F Entry 25. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Regulation 9 of the Regulations framed under the Medical Council of India Act, inter alia, provides G that admission to post-graduate medical courses shall be made strictly on the basis of inter se academic merit of the candidates. The Regulation further stipulates the methodology for determining the academic merit of the candidate. Regulation 9 is a complete code by itself H 884 SUDHIR N. & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. 885 inasmuch as it prescribes the basis for determining the A eligibility of the candidates including the method to be adopted for determining the inter se merit which remains the only basis for such admissions. That method, however, is given a go-bye by the impugned legislation i.e. s. 5(4) of Kerala Medical Officers' Admission to Post B Graduate Courses under Service Quota Act, 2008, when it provides that in-service candidates seeking admission in the quota reserved for in-service doctors shall be granted such admission not on the basis of one of the methodologies sanctioned by Rule 9(2) of the Rules but c on the basis of inter se seniority of such candidates. [Paras 12 and 14] (894-E; 896-E-H] 2. The High Court was right in holding that inasmuch as the provisions of Section 5(4) of the impugned enactment provides a basis for selection of candidates D different from the one stipulated by the MCI Regulations it was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. However, it was not correct in adopting a reconciliatory approach when it directed that seniority of the in-service candidates will continue to play a role E provided the candidates concerned have appeared in the common entrance test and secured the minimum percentage of marks stipulated by the Regulations. A meritorious in-service candidate cannot be denied admission only because he has an eligible senior above F him though lower in merit. Merit and merit alone can be the basis of admission among candidates belonging to any given category. In service candidates belong to one category. Their inter-se merit cannot be overlooked only to promote seniority which has no place in the scheme G of MCI Regulations. That does not mean that merit based admissions to in-service candidates cannot take into account the service rendered by such candidates in rural areas. Weightage for such service is permissible while determining the merit of the candidates in terms of the H 886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R. A third proviso to Regulation 9. Regulation 9 remains as the only effective and permissible basis for granting admission to in-service candidates, provisions of Section 5(4) of the impugned enactment notwithstanding. That being so, admissions can and ought to be made only on B the basis of inter se merit of the can~idates determined in terms of the said principle which gives no weightage to seniority simplicitor. [Para 20] [905-H; 906-A-G] Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 120: 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249; State of M.P. & Ors. C v. Gopal D. Tirthani & Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 83: 2003 (1) Suppl. D E SCR 797; State of T.N. and Anr. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute & Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 104: 1995 (2) SCR 1075 - reli
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.