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

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 (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
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."