Case: State of Punjab & Another Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Others

L. Nageswara Rao, J.Leave granted.1. The office report shows that some of the Respondents are not served. As the contesting parties are represented through counsel and in view of the urgency of the matter, we have heard these Appeals finally.2. The above Appeals are filed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the facts of the Appeal filed by the State of Punjab. The Department of Medical Education and Research (Health-III Branch), Government of Punjab notified admissions to Post Graduate degree/diploma courses for the year 2017-2018 on 29.03.2017. As per the said notification, the eligibility criteria and the other conditions shall be as prescribed in the Information Bulletin for National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) (Post Graduate) for admission to MD/MS/Post Graduate courses 2017. Clause 17 (III) of the notification dated 29.03.2017 provides for an incentive of 30 per cent of total marks obtained in NEET (PG), 2017 to be granted to in-service doctors of PCMS/PCMS (Dental).3. The eligibility criteria provided in Clause 17 (IV) are as follows:“17. Distribution of Seats in Govt. Institutions (Govt. Medical/ Dental College, Amritsar & Patiala, GGS Medical College, Faridkot)[…]IV. Eligibility Criteria:* For in-service Regular PCMS/PCMS (Dental) doctors:-a) The Eligibility requirements for grant of incentive shall be as under:i. Regular PCMS/PCMS (Dental) employeeii. Has completed 4 full years (48 months) service in very difficult (Category D) area or 6 full years (72 months) service in difficult (Category C) area or an appropriate combination of both. In case of candidates who have completed 5 full years (60 months) of service (as on 01-01-2012), they should have completed 2 full years (24 months) of service in most difficult areas or 3 full years (36 months) of service in difficult areas. Very difficult (Category D)/Difficult (Category C)/Most Difficult/Difficult area, as case may be, shall be defined by Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Punjab.iii. RMOs once they are selected in PCMS/PCMS (Dental), will be given benefit of rural service rendered by them as RMOs under Zila Parishad.iv. Has cleared probation periodv. Has good service recordvi. Has no vigilance/departmental/disciplinary inquiry pending against him/her.vii. Will have 10 years of service left after completion of the course.”4. Respondents No.1 and 2 challenged Clause 17 of the notification dated 29.03.2017 to the extent that the incentive of 30 per cent of the total marks obtained in the NEET (PG) 2017 was restricted only to in-service PCMS/PCMS (Dental) doctors. The grievance of the writ petitioners was that Rural Medical Officers (RMOs) were excluded from the benefit of the incentive of 30 per cent of the total marks obtained in the NEET examination for the purpose of admission to Post Graduate courses.5. The writ petitioners relied upon Regulation 9 (IV) of the MCI Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 to contend that the incentive of a maximum of 30 per cent of the marks obtained in the NEET (PG) examination should be extended to Rural Medical Officers who have worked in remote and difficult areas. They relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in State of UP v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, (2016) 9 SCC 749 to contend that Regulation 9 is a complete code governing the admissions to medical courses and the State Government has no authority to issue instructions contrary to the Regulations. The High Court framed three questions for consideration which are as follows:“(i) Whether restricting the grant of incentive for service in remote or difficult areas to PCMS/PCMS (Dental) doctors while not granting it to Rural Medical Officers employed by the Zila Parishads is illegal being contrary to the intent and requirement of proviso to Regulation 9 (iv) of the MCI Regulations?(ii) Whether limiting the grant of incentives for such service for admission to post graduate classes in government colleges only and not giving similar incentive for admission to private colleges is illegal being contrary to Regulation 9 (IV).(iii) Whether the eligibility criteria as specified in Clause 17 (iv) (a) (ii) is illegal being contrary to that specified in proviso to Regulation 9 (IV)?”6. It was held by the High Court that the objective of the MCI Regulations was to encourage doctors to serve in rural areas. Restricting the incentive only to PCMS doctors by not extending the same to Rural Medical Officers working in the subsidiary hospitals under the Zila Parishads defeats the objective of the Regulations. The classification made by the Appellant for granting the benefit of incentive was found to be unreasonable.7. The High Court found fault with the policy of the State Government in not extending the benefit of weightage given to in-service doctors to Government seats in private medical colleges. Reference was made to paragraph 42 of the judgment in Dinesh Singh Chauhan’s case wherein it was held that Regulation 9 per se does not make any distinction between Government and non Government colleges for allocation of weightage of marks to in-service candidates.8. Clause 17 (IV) (a) provides for a minimum service of 4 years in very difficult areas or 6 years in difficult areas to be completed by a Government doctor to claim the benefit of the incentive of 30 per cent of total marks obtained in the NEET (PG) examination. The challenge to this Clause which provides for a minimum service for acquiring eligibility was upheld. The High Court held that the said Clause is contrary to the judgment of this Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan’s case.9. The High Court held that restricting the grant of the incentive for service in remote/difficult areas only to in-service PCMS doctors was violative of Regulation 9 (IV) of the MCI Regulations. The High Court directed the Rural Medical Officers employed in Zila Parishads to be granted the benefit of incentive for service in remote/difficult areas subject to the same conditions of the eligibility as PCMS doctors. There was a further direction that the benefit of the proviso to Regulation 9 (IV) shall be granted for admission to Government seats in private medical institutions also. The High Court also directed recasting the merit list for admission to Postgraduate courses.10. It is relevant to mention that the point whether the Rural Medical Officers working in Zila Parishads in the State of Punjab were entitled for claiming parity with PCMS doctors was considered by the High Court in CWP No.11188 of 2013 and other connected matters. The said cases pertained to Postgraduate/diploma courses for the session 2013-2014. 60 per cent of the seats for that year were reserved for in-service PCMS doctors. Rural Medical Officers working in Zila Parishads were aggrieved by their exclusion from the said quota of 60 per cent reserved for in-service doctors. The batch of writ petitions referred to above was dismissed by a Single Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by a judgment dated 22.05.2013. It was held that the issue pertains to a policy matter which was within the exclusive domain of the State, not warranting any interference at the hands of the High Court. In the Appeals preferred by the Rural Medical Officers, a Division Bench directed the Chief Secretary of the State of Punjab to call for a meeting with all concerned officers to explore the possibility of a resolution of the dispute at the government level. The Chief Secretary conducted a meeting on 24.07.2003 in which it was decided that the benefit of the incentive of 30 per cent marks can be given only to PCMS doctors who were required to man secondary level institutions requiring specialist services. It was concluded at the meeting that there was no rationale in extending the benefit of the incentive as provided in Regulation 9(IV) of the MCI Regulations to Rural Medical Officers considering the nature of their duties. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Appeals filed by the Rural Medical Officers by a judgment dated 27.05.2013. A review petition was filed by the Rural Medical Officers seeking a direction to admit them in the unfilled vacancies by being given weightage. The High Court extended the benefit of the weightage to Rural Medical Officers for admission in those unfilled seats. The judgment of the High Court in the review petition was challenged before this Court. Though this Court did not approve the clarification issued by the High Court in the review application, it refused to interfere with the judgment of the High Court in the review petition.11. The point that arises for our consideration is whether Rural Medical Officers working in Zila Parishads are entitled to claim the benefit of the incentive provided in Regulation 9 (IV) of the MCI Regulations. Regulation 9 (IV) of the MCI Regulations is as follows:“9. Procedure for selection of candidate for postgraduate courses shall be as follows.—[…](IV) The reservation of seats in medical colleges/institutions for respective categories shall be as per applicable laws prevailing in States/Union Territories. An all-India merit list as well as State-wise merit list of the eligible candidates shall be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test and candidates shall be admitted to postgraduate courses from the said merit lists only:Provided that in determining the merit of candidates who are in service of Government/public authority, weightage in the marks may be given by the Government/competent authority as an incentive at the rate of 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service in remote and/or difficult areas up to the maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test, the remote and difficult areas shall be as defined by the State Government/competent authority from time to time.”12. This Court in the judgment of Dinesh Singh Chauhan held that Regulation 9 is a self contained code for admissions to postgraduate medical courses. There is no doubt that the proviso to Regulation 9 (IV) is an enabling provision. The State Government has the liberty to provide for weightage in the marks to in-service doctors who have served in remote and difficult areas. There is no right which inheres in the government doctors to compel the State Government for providing the incentive. The controversy that arises in this case is whether the government can restrict the benefit of the incentive only to PCMS doctors working in government hospitals and exclude the Rural Medical Officers working in the Zila Parishads.13. As mentioned above, a Division Bench of the High Court in Dr. Manu Gupta v. State of Punjab and Ors. LPA No.1043 of 2013 and connected matters adjudicated the point of Rural Medical Officers satisfying the parameters of in-service doctors. It was held that the two services of PCMS doctors and Rural Medical Officers were different. Their service conditions were not the same and PCMS doctors belong to a State cadre whereas the Rural Medical Officers fall within the District cadre. It was further held that the policy decision taken by the Government not to equate Rural Medical Officers with the PCMS doctors was not arbitrary. The contention of the State was that Rural Medical Officers were working only in subsidiary health centres at the Zila Parishad level where there were no facilities for secondary and tertiary care. The decision of the Government that the funding for postgraduate studies was restricted only to PCMS doctors in view of their posting to District hospitals, sub divisional hospitals and other centres where facilities were available for secondary care. After examining the report submitted by the Chief Secretary, the High Court held that the Rural Medical Officers cannot claim parity with PCMS doctors and seek admission to post graduate courses from the in-service quota.14. The Government made the very same submissions before the High Court in CWP Nos.7026, 7089 and 7418 of 2017 filed by the Rural Medical Officers for extension of benefit of the incentive as per Regulation 9 of the MCI Regulations, 2000. The High Court held that the judgment in Dr. Manu Gupta’s case was not relevant for determination of the questions raised as Regulation 9 was not considered therein. The High Court rejected the submission made by the Government that the two services are different. In the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the health services rendered by Panchayati Raj Institutions complemented the health services provided by the State Government. The High Court observed that the laudable objective with which Regulation 9 was made would be defeated if Rural Medical Officers are not given the benefit of the incentive. The findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment are completely contrary to the judgment of a coordinate Bench in Dr. Manu Gupta (supra) that the two services of PCMS and Rural Medical Officers are different as they are governed by two separate set of service rules. The High Court should not have held that the judgment in Dr. Manu Gupta’s case is not relevant as the points that were urged by the State Government to defend the notification were exactly the same which were held in its favour by the High Court earlier. If the High Court was not in agreement with the judgment of the coordinate Bench, the matter should have been referred to a larger Bench. (see: Safia Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain Alias Fasi (2011) 2 SCC 94 at paragraphs 27-30; G.L. Batra v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2014) 13 SCC 759 at paragraphs 14-16).15. Even assuming that the High Court was right in its conclusion that the impugned notification was vitiated by unreasonable classification, the matter should have been remitted back to the Government for fresh consideration. Instead, the High Court directed the authorities to proceed with the admission process by giving the benefit of incentive to the Rural Medical Officers.16. The first round of counselling for admission to postgraduate courses was completed on 13th, 14th and 15th of April, 2017. Doctors who were selected for admission have paid their fees and joined the courses. We are also informed that certain doctors who secured admission in institutions outside the State have given up their admissions to join the postgraduate course in the State of Punjab. We are not inclined to interfere with the admissions made to postgraduate courses for this year. As we are not interfering with the admissions for this year, we do not deem it necessary to decide the other two points pertaining to the applicability of the incentive to Private Medical Colleges and the validity of the action of the government in prescribing the minimum service in the remote/difficult areas as eligibility criteria.17. While considering the challenge to the validity of Regulation 9 (IV) of the MCI Regulations, this Court considered the objective of Regulation 9 in State of UP v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, (2016) 9 SCC 749 at paragraph 33 and held as follows:"As aforesaid, the real effect of Regulation 9 is to assign specified marks commensurate with the length of service rendered by the candidate in notified remote and difficult areas in the State linked to the marks obtained in NEET. That is a procedure prescribed in the Regulation for determining merit of the candidates for admission to the Post Graduate “Degree” Courses for a single State. This serves a dual purpose. Firstly, the fresh qualified Doctors will be attracted to opt for rural service, as later they would stand a good chance to get admission to Post Graduate “Degree” Courses of their choice. Secondly, the Rural Health Care Units run by the Public Authority would be benefitted by Doctors willing to work in notified rural or difficult areas in the State. In our view, a Regulation such as this sub-serves larger public interest."

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]The findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment are completely contrary to the judgment of a coordinate Bench in Dr. Manu Gupta (supra) that the two services of PCMS and Rural Medical Officers are different as they are governed by two separate set of service rules. The High Court should not have held that the judgment in Dr. Manucase is not relevant as the points that were urged by the State Government to defend the notification were exactly the same which were held in its favour by the High Court earlier. If the High Court was not in agreement with the judgment of the coordinate Bench, the matter should have been referred to a larger Bench.Even assuming that the High Court was right in its conclusion that the impugned notification was vitiated by unreasonable classification, the matter should have been remitted back to the Government for fresh consideration. Instead, the High Court directed the authorities to proceed with the admission process by giving the benefit of incentive to the Rural Medical Officers.16. The first round of counselling for admission to postgraduate courses was completed on 13th, 14th and 15th of April, 2017. Doctors who were selected for admission have paid their fees and joined the courses. We are also informed that certain doctors who secured admission in institutions outside the State have given up their admissions to join the postgraduate course in the State of Punjab. We are not inclined to interfere with the admissions made to postgraduate courses for this year. As we are not interfering with the admissions for this year, we do not deem it necessary to decide the other two points pertaining to the applicability of the incentive to Private Medical Colleges and the validity of the action of the government in prescribing the minimum service in the remote/difficult areas as eligibility criteria.17. While considering the challenge to the validity of Regulation 9 (IV) of the MCI Regulations, this Court considered the objective of Regulation 9 in State of UP v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, (2016) 9 SCC 749     at paragraph 33 and held asaforesaid, the real effect of Regulation 9 is to assign specified marks commensurate with the length of service rendered by the candidate in notified remote and difficult areas in the State linked to the marks obtained in NEET. That is a procedure prescribed in the Regulation for determining merit of the candidates for admission to the Post GraduateCourses for a single State. This serves a dual purpose. Firstly, the fresh qualified Doctors will be attracted to opt for rural service, as later they would stand a good chance to get admission to Post GraduateCourses of their choice. Secondly, the Rural Health Care Units run by the Public Authority would be benefitted by Doctors willing to work in notified rural or difficult areas in the State. In our view, a Regulation such as thislarger public interest."