WP/1188/2002 of DR.AITIN KUNDU and ORS. Vs STATE OF C.G. and ORS. on 10 December 2002

rq

([“/3]IN THE[HI$H][ COURT][ OF]ATJUDICATUREBILASPUREOF CHEATTI$ARHH39WRIT[PETITION]N0.OF2093:1.Dr.Atin Kundu.ageé about25yearsS/o.hatesShri N.K.KunduR/o.REG—185TatibandhRamuzéima. 5 .2.Dr.shai1endra PratapSinghaed about25yearsso.Shri P.S.TakshakR/o.6-8,Green[Valley]Behiad Egjel;ChhattisgarhRaipur(o )uDr.Ajay[Tharani]aged about25yearss/o.ShriI.L.TharaniRea.D—292/5,Tagore HagarRaipur(C.G.).Dr.I¢:Lshna Kumaraged about25 yearss/o.Shri J.P.KhoteR/o.H.No.7/959 0m[Nagar]’taJarhaBilasp(CcGo ).Dr.RaghavendraSinghaged[about]27‘ yearss/o.Dr.J. S.KachhawahaR/o.409,Sunder NagarRaipur(C.G. ) .6.Dr.santosh Motawaniaged[about]26yearss/o.Shri V.D.Motawani8/0.Santosh[Gudakhu][ Factory]Term,Bilaspur(C.G.).‘7.Dr.Kshit15 mapardeaed about24 yearsS o.Dr.“ .RJchapardeR/o. can.3-B/st.No.48sector-8.Bhilai NaarDistrict Burg((2.6..;It85§r.Neety[Agrawal]aged abaut23yearsD/o.Shri.N.L.AgrawalR o.3-3,Ravi Naar,ear‘ew BusStand,Ra purCoGo).49.Dr.Bhawana Pipersania,1?D/o.R.K’.Pipersaniaagedabout26yearsR/o.Matrinagar,BhilaiDistrict Durg(C.G.).

:3G.Dr.Eesh Nigams/o.shri 3.x.mgamaged about 25,earsR/o.Iii-43,Vas nt marS.E..C.L.,Seepat RoadBilaspur(C.G.).mSUSRESPONDENTS_.__._._r"’”s'rATE OF cmT'rIssARHKy.throaghr-SecretaryDepartmentof Public Healths:Emily[Welfare]and Medical’V‘E§;7K.S.BHAW,Education.Raipur(c.G.).2.Pt .Ravishankar3huk1aUniversitythroughits RegistrarRaipur(C-G. ) .v‘Dean,V\/P§.JawaharLalNehru'MgéicalCollege,Riipur(COGO).The Boardof, HigherSecondaryEducation,throughitsController.Raim(C9GO ) ov/S.Medieal- CouncilofIndiaAiwan-E-Galib Marg,Kotla Road.New §e1hi-116002.DirectorHealthServicesGoveramentof ehhattisgarhD.K. S.Bhawan4Raipur(C.G.).w[?]PETITION UNDER ARTICLES226(227OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF'I‘sst‘iANcE‘DIREc'rloushim; fdkor APPROPRIATE mns ANDMmCLUDIm WIT OF MANDAMUS AND FURTHER DIRECTIONSETC:l~..I’rvr4

i-EEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARJ‘I;[BILASPUR]W.P. NO,1 188i2002WRIT PETITION UNDER[ARTICLE][ 226]I[227][ OF]CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

7 Dr. Atjn Kundu 65 Ors

Th6 Stats of Chhattisgarh[ (35][ Ors.]

Versus

Petitionsrs

Respondents

For petitionam;Shri Kanak Tiwari with[Shli]Sandeep Dubey, Advocata For respondents:

Shri Ravindra Shrivastava,AdvocateGensralwithDr.N.K.Shukla,AddLAdv.Goneral8aShriSemjayKAgalwal,DsputyAdvocateGeneralfortherespondent‘Nos.l t04&6.31mv.v.s.Murthy,AddLCenkalGovt.Standingcounsel for respondent[No.5.]

Shn‘ B.C.Mishra,Shri RajeevShrivastava,ShriManindraShrivastava,ShriM. P. S.Bha‘ria, Shri Prashant[Jaiswal,]counsel for the interveners; PRESENT:

Date of Order10/12/2002

HON’3LE SHE JUSTICE P.C.NAIK

In Medical Council‘of[India][ Vs][ Madhu][ Singh](AIR[2002]SCWS742),the ApexCourthas,if one maysayso withrespect, Very aptly observed that[“when][ time of][ admission][ to]MedicalCoursesarrives,immediatelycomestomind Shakgspeares’ Othello, whereit has been written“Chaos iscomeagain”.Inevitable resultis that considerable timeislost by candidates chasing Vires instead of Virus.”Thisxveryaptly applies to the case at hand.

2. The petitioners, wholare 3O in number, have preferledthis writ petition calling in question the validity of Rule 6.3 of“ChhattisgarhtheSnatakottarPraVeshParikshaNiyam“PG2002”inshort,Rules2002”whichmandatesthatcompletion of two years‘service in a Rural Primaty HealthCentre under the State Govemment on or'before 30th April ofthePre~PGExaminationis a must.The immediateegectbeing that even those candidates who have an outstandingacademiccareer will not beable-totake upthePle[—]PGExaminationincasetheyhavenot doneserviceunder aRural Primary Health Centre for a period of two years thoughthey may have been practicing in a rural area.

3. According tothepetitioners,sincecoordination anddeterminationofstandardsininstitutionsofhighereducationorresearchandscientificandtechnicalinstitutions is a matter falling under Entry 66 of List 1 of theVIIScheduleto the Constitution of India and,the MedicalCouncil of India having framedthePost Graduate MedicalRegulau'ons,2000,theStateGovernmentcouldnot,in[exerciseoflegislativepowersunderEntry25ofListIII(Concurrent),[have]any power to legislate and provide for aneligibility criteria for admission to Post Graduate Courses as i “‘H

‘i

/

t//

it is an occupied iield under[Entry][ 66][ of][ T116][ Union][ List.]ItwaS submitted that the Indian Medical[Council][ Act,]1956isa Ccntral legislation and[tho][ rcgulations][ framcd][ thereunder]arc a complcto code which lay[down][ tho][ method][ that][ may][ be]adopted for selection of the candidates[for][ the][ Pre—PG][ course]and the qualification which they[Should]possess[in][ order][ to]make them eligible for being[considered.]The State cannot,according to the petitioners, fix any[other][ criteria][ or][ lay][ down]any other standard, which may[have][ the][ effect][ of][ debarring][ a]studenttotakeupthePre-PGtestthoughhemaybequalifiedandeligibleaspertheMedicalCouncilof IndiaRegulations.In short, the case of the petitioners[is][ that][ Rule]6.3 of the Post Graduate Rules[not][ only][ curtails][ but][ literally]takesawaytherightofacandidate,whoisotheiwisequalified[under][ the][ Medical Council][ of][ India][ Regulations][ to]appear at a Pre‘PG test unless[he][ does][ compulsory][ service]under a Rural Primary Health [Centre][ under][ the]State andthis means 100 per cent[reservation][ for][ in—service][ candidates]which is‘ illegal.

On the other hand,it is the case of the respondent—StatethattheStateGovernmenthasfulllegislativecompetence and power to frame[a][ rule][ to][ regulate][ admission]into medical colleges and lay[down][ conditions of][ eligibility,]more so when these institutions[are][ run][ out][ of][ the][ funds][ of]theStateGovernmentandsolongasthestandardsofmedical educatiOn as prescribed[by][ the][ Union][ Legislation][ are]not in any way dilutedor lowered down.lt is the further casathattheimpugnedruls(6.3)relatestoeligibilityforappearanceatthePre-PGExaminau'on anditin no waydilutcs or lowers down the standard of education laid downby the Regulations of 2002 and on the contiaiy, the trainingandexposurewillbetterequipthemforhigherstudies.According to the State, the power of the Union to legislate isconfined only to make law in regard to[“standards]of MedicalEducation” and not beyond that and the State has not in anyway lowered the standard of medical education laid down bytheMedical Council of India by naming Rule 6.3.At anyrate,accordingtotheState,the Government hastaken apolicy[decision that][ only][ those,][ who][ serve][ in][ a][ Rural][ Primary]Health Centre, will be eligible to take up the Pre—PG test anddo Post Graduation.This policy decision,it was submitted,has been taken because the doctors were refusing to take upruralservicebecauseof whichtheruralpopulation[was]sutferingandinordertoimplementtheobligationofproviding[rural][ health,][ Rule][ 6.3][ has][ been][ incorporated.]Andthat being a policy decision, it is not open to challenge beforetheCourt.Atanyrate,it wassubmittedthatrighttoeducationnot being aFundamentalRight,thepetitionershave no cause of action.

4. Before proceeding further,it would be appropriatetomake areferencetotherelevant provisionsof thePre-PGRules and the entries in the VII Schedule to the Constitution4of India, which were referred to at the time of hearing.

1‘

a

Rule6ofthePre-PGRules,2002providestheeligibilitycn‘ten'a,whichacandidatemustfulfilforadmission to Post Graduate Coursss.Rclavant part of Rule 6.3 thcxtof reads thus:

“Hascompleted2yearsserviceinaruralPrimaryHealthCentreundertheStateGovernment on or before 30th April of the Pre—PGExamirxa’rion.Forthisthecandidate willhavetosubmitacertificategivenbytheDirector of Health Services Chhattisgarh in theprescribed[format.”]

Reference may also be made to the relevant entries[of]theVIIScheduletotheConsn'tun'onofIndiatowhichrefeience was made.These are quoted thus; Entry 66 of List I (Union List)

“Co—ordination and determination of standardsin institutions for higher education or researchand scientiiic and technical institutions.

Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List)

“Education,includingtechnicaleducation,medical education anduniversities,subject tothe provisions of Entries 63,64, 65 and 66 ofListI;vocationalandtechnicaltrainingoflabour.

Entry 6 of List II (State List)

“Publichealthandsanitation;hospitalsanddispensaries.”

5. TheIndian Medical Council Act,1956(inshort,the‘Act’) wasenactedtoprovideforthereconstitution of theMedicalCouncilofIndia(inshort,theM,C.I.)andmaintenance of a Medical Register for[India]and[for][ matters]connected thereof.One of the objects of the Bill and reasons

v):

A,/c

amongstother,istoprovidefortheformulationofaCommitteeofPostGraduateMedicalEducationfortheof universitiesandtoadviseuniversitiesintheguidancematterofsecuringuniformstandardsforPostGraduateMedical Education throughout[India.]

6. Section 33of the ActgivestotheCouncil, with[the]previous[sanction][ of][ the][ Central][ Government,]the power tomake regulationsgenerally[to]cariy out the purpose[of][ the]Act and these regulations[may]provide [including][ others][ for]the conduct of professional[examinations,]qualificationsofexaminersandtheconditionsofadmissiontosuchexaminations.Inexerciseofthesepowers,theMedicalCouncil of India with[the]previoussanction of theCentralGovernment has[made][ the][ Post][ Graduate][ Medical][ Education]Regulations, 2000,[which][ have][ admittedly][ come][ into][ force,]

Under Clause 3.1of the Regulation,the goal of PostGraduateMedicalEducationistoproducecompetentspecialists and] or[medical][ teachers.]

Clause8.3of theRegulationlaysdownthateverystudentselectedforadmissiontoa postgraduatemedicalcourse in any of[the][ medical][ institution][ in][ the][ country,][ shall]possess[recognized][ MBBS][ degree or][ equivalent][ qualification]andshouldhave obtained permanent[registration][ with][ the]Medical Council[of][ India][ or][ any][ of][ the][ State][ Medical][ Councils]or should obtain[the][ same][ within][ one][ month][ from][ the][ date][ of]

admission, failing which the admission of the candidate shallbe cancelled.

Clause9oftheRegulationrelatestoselectionofpostgraduate[students][ and][ being][ relevant][ for][ the]purpose[of]

this case, is quoted in extenso:

“(1)

Students for postgraduate medical coursesshallbeselectedstrictlyonthebasisof theiracademic merit.

(2) Fordeterminingthe.academicmerit,theUniversity/instimtion may adopt any oneof thefollowing procedures both for degree and diplomacourses:-(i)On the basis of merit as determined by acompetitivetest conducted by thesmtegovernmentorbythecompetentauthorityappointedbythestategovernmentor bytheuniversity/ groupof universities in the same state; or

(ii) On the basis of merit as determined by acentralizedcompetitivetest heldat thenational level; or

(iii) Onthebasisoftheindividualcumulativeperformanceatthehrst,second and third MBBS examinations,ifsuchexaminationshavebeenpassedfrom the same university; or

(iv) Combination of (i) and (iii):

ProvidedthatWhereverentrancetestforpostgraduateadmissionisheldbyastategovernmentorauniversityoranyotherauthorizedexaminingbody,theminimumpercentage[of][ marks][ for][ eligibility][ for][ admission][ to]postgraduate[medical][ course][ shall][ be][ 50]percentfor general category candidates and 4O percent forthecandidatesbelongingtoScheduledCastes,Scheduled Tribes an Other Backward Classes:

Providedfurtherthatinnon—governmentalinstitutions fifty percent of the total seats shall befilledbythecompetentauthorityandtheremaining fifty percent by the management of theinstitution on the basis of merit.”

Thus,it would be[seexl][ that][ under][ Clause][ 9,][ a][ student]forsslect'mn[for][ admission][ to][ a]postgraduaté[course,][ must]amcognizedMBBSdegree0requivalentposscss¥qua1if1c7ationandshouldhaveobtainedapermanentregistrau'on[and][ the]selection[is][ to][ be][ made]strictly[on][ the]basis of[the][ academic][ merit.]Under the[Proviso,][ only][ those]students[Will][ be][ eligible][ for][ admission][ Who][ have][ secured][ 50]percent[of][ marks][ if][ belonging][ to][ the][ general][ category][ and][ 40]of marksif belongingtoSC,STor OBCatthepercentEntrance[Examination.]

7. Challenge[was]alsoraisedtoRule 6.3of RG.Rules2002[on][ the]ground[that][ it][ lays][ down][ a][ condition,][ which][ was]impossibletofulnllby30*}1April2002anditshouldtherefore be[struck][ down.][ According][ to][ the][ petitioners,][ since]theStateofChhattisgarhcameintoexistenceon01/11/2000,it wasimpossiblefor any[one]to put in[two]years[of][ rural][ service][ under][ a][ Primary][ Health][ Centre][ under]theGovernmentof Chhattisgarhbecausethisiswhatisrequired under[the]Rules.In View of[the]definition[of][ the]it toword[“State][ Government”][ under][ Rule][ 2.][ 1][ which][ defines]meanthe“GovernmentofChhattisgarh".Thus,it wassubmittedthatineligiblestudentshad,onawrongcertiiication,[been][ held][ eligible][ to][ appear][ in][ the][ examination]whereas[the]petitioners[had][ been][ wrongfully][ deprived][ from]undertaking[the][ test.]

\.\

&A‘

-

Inreply,it wascontended bythelearnedAdvocateGeneralthat theinterpretationof Rule6.3asput[by]the“StateThe word Government”,petitioners,[was][ not][ correct.]it was submitted, cannot be confined to the[Government][ of]Chhattisgarh,butalsoincludestheStateofMadhyaPradesh.Accordingly,it wassubmittedthat a candidate,who had put in two years of rural service in a[Rural][ Primary]HealthCentreeitherundertheGovernmentofMadhyaPradesh,or under theGovernmentof Chhattisgarh on orbefore 30th April,2002,iseligibleto undertake the Pre-PGExamination and as such the candidates, who were[issued]admit cards,are those who had put in two years of serviceunder a Rural Primaiy Health Centre under the Governmentof Madhya Pradesh and/ or Government of Chhattisgarh.

Opposingtheprayer,thelearnedAdvocateGeneralsubmitted that the State was justified in incorporating Rule6.3, as an eligibility criteria.At any rate,it was submittedthatthoughtheStatecouldnotdilutethestandardlaiddown by the Medical Council of India, it was perfectly withinits right to provide something in addition to the standard laiddown by the Medical Council of India. Reliance is placed onthe decision of the Apex Court in K Chitralekha Vs. Stateof Mysore,1964(2)[SCC]1823.It was also submitted thatthe condition of two years mandatory rural service has beenintroducedbecause,thedoctors werenot preparedtodo'Arural service.lot of statistics was placed before the Courtin support of his contention,According to the State, out of yh, 1792sanctionedposts,588posts[am]lying Vacant out ofwhich 438 are in the rural areas.It was submitted that theaction was deemed necessary because it was felt by The Statethatthedoctorsdonotco—operatewiththeStateGovernmenttofuliilltheConstitutionalobligationof theState as stipulated in Article 47 of the Constitution of India,which enjoins the Government to provide medical facilities tothe citizens.According to the State, the students who obtaintheir degree course from theState funded medical collegeshave a social obligation to serve the State and specially thoseareaswhichlackmedicalfacilities.It wastomeetthischallenge that the State Government had incorporated Rule6.3sothatthosedoctorswhoareanxioustoobtainpostgraduate[degree]][ diploma][ are][ obliged][ to]put in two yearsof mandatory rural service under the State Govemment.Itwasfurthersubmittedthatthisexposurewouldfurtherequiptheseyoungdoctorsandhelptoimprovetheirstandardforhighermedicaleducation.Itwasalsosubmitted that Rule 6.3in no way offends clause 9 of theRegulations framed by the Medical Council of India,forithas nothing to do with the selection criteria, but is in fact aneligibility criteria laid down by the State Government anditcannot be construed as providing for 100% reservation forin-service candidates.

9. At thisstage,it will be relevant to mention that aftertheinterimorderwaspassed,theStateGovernment“ChhattisgarhpromulgatedanordinanceMedical SnatkottarPraV€shParsekshaNiyam,2002(Sanshodhan)Adhyadesh,2002”[hereinafter[referred]toas[“Chhattisgarh]Adhyadssh (No.8 of 2002)] which was brought into force from15—05—2002.Bythisordinance,an Explanation has boonadded to Rule 6.3.This explanation reads thus:

“ForthepurposesofRu1e6.3above,theexpression[“under]the State Government” shallinclude,andbedeemedtohavealwaysincluded,theStateGovernmentasitpre—existed prior to15‘ November 2000 in relationtoareanowcomprisedintheStateofChhattisgarh.”

Theordinancefurther providesthat notwithstandinganything contained in the Chhattisgarh Medical SnatkottarPraveshPareekshaNiyam,2002,anyactiontaken,proceedingsaccomplished,oranythingdone,undertheshall be deemed toprovisions[of][ Rule][ 6.3 of][ the][ said][ rules,]have been done or carried out under the provisions of thisOrdinance.This Ordinance subsequently has been replacedby[“Chhattisgarh]ChikitsaMahavidyalayonKeSnatakottarPathyakramon mein Pravesh Adhiniyam 2002” (Act 1:10.26 of2002y

10. It wasalso contended on behalf of the State that theright topetitioners[were][ under][ a][ mistaken][ notion][ that][ the]seekadmissiontothePostGraduateCourseswasafundamental right whenit in fact itis not asheld by theApex Court in Unni Krishnan, JP & Others VsState ofAndhraPradesh(AIR.1993SC2178).It wasfurthersubmittedthatthecriterialaiddownbytheState F,‘ vfr Government was1'11 the realm of a policy dacision of the Statewhichwasinexerciseofitsmultifariousactivitiesofgovernance[under][ the]Constituu’on andsinceit was basedupontheperception[of][ the]State Government as a‘welfareGovernment, the Comt could not sit in appeal over the saidpolicy[decision.]It wasalso submitted that looking to theneeds of rural people, the policy could not be characterizedasarbitrary.It was the further submission that since theGovernment spends lakhs of rupees in imparting GraduateandPost-GraduateMedicalEducation,itwasperfectlywithinitsright to lay down a criteria making rural servicemandatoryforapersonseekingadmissiontothePost—Graduate Classes.

11. NoticeofthepetitionwasalsoservedonMedicalCouncilofIndiaonWhosebehalfShiiV.V.'S.Murthy’AdditionalStandingCounsel forCentralGovernment,hasenteredappearance.But,inspiteoftimehavingbeengranted,[he][ has][ not][ med][ any][ return][ but][ stated][ that][ he][ would]support the Government’s stand.

. 12.Prayerforintervention wasalsomadeonbehalf ofDr.Smt.Jenevibha,Dr.A.K.Humane,Dr.K.K.Ramteke,Dr.NanakramSachdevandDr.M.K.Rai,which was granted,andShriB.C.Mish_ra,ShriManindraShrivastava,ShriM.P.S.Bha1ia,ShriPrashantJaiswalandShriRajeevShrivasta, Advocates who had entered appearance on theirbehalf and were also heard.

x/y

13. The lamedcounselfortheInterveners hadinvitedattention to Clause—IX[of][ M.C.I.]regulations,[which]providesthediEerent modes[which]couldbeadoptedforselectingcandidatesforadmissiontoP‘G.Class.Accordingtothelearned counsel,[since][ M.C.I.][ did][ not]prescribe[any][ eligibility]criteria, it was[open][ to][ the][ State][ Government][ to]prescribe[the]same i.e., to lay[down][ some][ conditions,][ which][ were][ required]to be fulfilled[before][ a]person[would][ be]permitted[to][ take][ up]thetest.It was also submitted[that][ the]persons[who][ have]renderedtwoyearsserviceunder aRuralPrimaryHealthCentre constitute[a][ well][ denned][ class][ and][ mandatory][ service].has a neXus[with][ the][ object][ sought][ to][ be][ achieved][ which][ is]toprovideforRuralHealth.Thus,therequirement[was]rational and not[arbitrary][ nor][ did][ it][ offend][ Entry][ 66][ of][ List][ I.]It was submitted[that][ at][ any][ rate,][ the]pro‘vision[of][ mandatoly]RuralServicedoesnotin any waydilutethestandardofeducation laid down[by][ the][ Medical Council][ of][ India,][ hence][ it]was Valid.

14. LengthyargumentswereadvancedbythelearnedCounselforthepetitioners[on]theexclusivepowerof theMedical Council[of][ India][ to]prescribe[a][ minimum][ standard][ of]MedicalEducationandlit wasstatedthatit hasimplicitpower[to][ supervise][ the][ qualihcation][ or][ eligibility][ standard][ for]admission into the[medical][ institutions.]Reference was[also]madetothePost-GraduateMedical Education[Regulations]

\/

\lx

2000, which are framed in Exercise of powers confexred bySection 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

15. TheRegulationsof2000laydownihatthePost—Graduate Degree Course shall be of three years duration andthePost—GraduateDiplomaCourseshallbeof twoyearsdurationandthatthestudentsof Post-GraduateMedicalCoursesshallbeselectedstrictlyonthebasisoftheiracademic merit.As has been noticed in the earlier part ofthejudgment,acandidateshouldpossessarecognizedM.B.B.S.Degree or equivalent qualification and should havea permanent registration of the Medical Council of India orany[State][ Council][ or obtain][ the][ same][ within][ one][ month][ from]the date of his admission.Apart from this, no other criteriaislaid down.That the teaching and syllabusis as per thenormslaiddown bytheMedicalCouncilof Indiaisnotdisputed.The bone of contention, however,is whether theprescription[of][ two]yearsrural service relatesto or can be“standardsaidtorelateto,of education”and,therefore,beyond the legislative competence of the State Government.According to the petitioners,it does and in support of theircontentions,relianceis placed on the decision of the ApexCourt in Guiarat Universitv v.Shri Krishna (AIR 1963 SC703) and M. Saleenav.State of Kerala and others(AIR1979 sc 765).

16. The facts in Gujarat University’s case (supra) were thatthestudenthadundertakentheSecondarySchool v /’/’

H/\

CertmcateExaminationthroughthemediumofMarathibeing his mother tongue.He joined the St. Xavier’s College,Whichwasaffih'atedtotheUniversityofGujaratandadmitted in the section in which instructions[were][ imparted]through the medium of English.He completed First year’sArtsCourseandappliedforadmissiontotheclassesforIntermediateArtsExaminationofthepreparingUniversitythroughthe mediumof English.However,thePrincipal of the College informed the student that in View[of]theprovisionsofGujaratUniversityAct,1949andtheStatutes207,208and209framed bytheSenateof theUniversity’ he i.e., Principal, could not, Without the sanctionof theUniversity,permit[him]to join theclassesin whichinstructions were imparted through the medium of English.On being moved,the University granted him permissiontokeep.Englishasamediumofexaminationbutnotforinstructions.This led to tiling of the writ petition before theyHighCourtinwhich,amongstothers,theprayer[was]todeclaie certain provisions of the Gujarat University[Act][ and]Statutes207,208and209asvoidandinoperative,theUniversityfromobjectingtoorfromprohibitingtheadmissionof ShrikanttoEnglish mediumprohibitingIntermediate Arts class.The writ petition was allowed by theHigh Court and consequently the Gujarat University and[the]State of Gujarat went in appeal before the Apex Court.Twosubstantial questions were involvedfor: determination[—]{1)Whether under the Gujarat University Act, 1949[ it][ is][ open][ to]

;

the University to prescribe Gujarati or Hindi or both as anexclusive medium or media of instruction and examinationintheaffiliatedcolleges,and(2)whetherlegislationauthorizingtheUniversitytoimposesuchmediawouldinfringe Entry 66 of List I, VII Schedule to the Constitution.

17. ThequestioninvolvedinGujaratUniversity’scase(Supra)[is]quite[diiferent][ and][ in][ the][ opinion][ of][ the][ Court,][ can]haveno bearing on thecaseat hand.Theteachingin aparticularlanguage,availabilityof teacherswhoarewellversedin that language andthenon—availability of propertext-books in that language would definitely, as held by theApexCourt,effectthestandardofeducation,obviouslybecause for want of teachers and /or for want of text—booksthestudentswouldnaturallybeadected,butsuchconsiderationsdonotariseinthecaseathand.Theregulations whether one does or does not do rural service, isnot likely to have effect in lowering or raising the standard ofeducation.A candidate for P.G. has already completed theprescribed[course][ leading][ to][ Graduate][ Degree](M.B.B.S.).Itis not disputed that the curriculum is as laid down by theCompetentAuthorityandthereisnoStateaction whichprescribes[anything][ which][ anects][ or][ dilutes][ the][ curriculum]laiddownorprescribedbytheappropriateauthority.Inother words, two years rural service in no of way affects thecurriculum laid down by the M.C.I. though it has the aifectof deferring the candidature for a P.G. class till such time astwo years rural serviceis completed.The contention of the petitionersthat prsscription of two yearsrural serviceseffectsorrelatestothestandardofeducationandassuchbeyondthecompetence of the State Legislature,therefore, cannot be accepted.But the eEect of this provision is to be considered i.e.. whether it canbe sustained in its present form.

18. Educah'onincludingtechnicaleducationandmedicaleducation after the 1976 Amendment Act,is covered by Entry 25 ofList III and this, is subject to provision of Entty 63, 64, 65 and 66 ofList I i.e., Union List which, as has been referred to above, relates toco—ordinationanddeterminationof standardsininstitutionsforhighereducationorresearchandscientificandtechnicalinstitutions.The word[“subject]to”clearly indicates that once theregulatory provisions are made under the Central Act,all contrarylaws and State laws become ipso facto void in View of Clause(I) ofArticle 254 of Constitution of India except in the case falling underClause(II)of Article254,Inthecaseathand,admittedly,theMedicalCouncilofIndiahasonlylaiddownthatacandidatedesiringto doP.G.Degree or Diploma must possess an M.B.B.S.Degreefromarecognizedinstitutionandmusthaveobtainedregistrationorget[himself][ registered][ within][ a][ month]of his beingadmitted.No other criteria, regarding domicile or any other matterhas been laid down.Naturally this has been and, as has been heldin a number of cases left to the State Governments, which hold thetest.Inthecaseathand,thebasicqualificationisnotbeingignored but what has been doneis that a rider has been added[—]4that of two years mandatory rural service.In other words, though a person[may]possessthebasicqualificationi.e.,M.B.B.S.,Degree aJJd he may fuh‘ill the other requinements of residenceor domicile,yet[he]will not be permittedto undertaketheexaminah'on if he has not done the mandatory rural service.The question is, could this be done?

19. The State Government defends its action as has beenseen above,on the ground that it is a policy decision andalso because of need of doctors in the rural areas.It wascontended that 81.64% of the population of the State resideinrural areasandout of 585poststhat arevacant,438vacancies arein the rural area.It was further pointed outthat the Government had issued 353 posting orders out of'which100in urban areas and 30in rural areas,but theGovernment failed to explain as to why the 100 persons whojoined[in][ urban][ areas][ were][ not][ sent][ to][ the]rural areas.TheGovernmenthasalsonot beenabletoexplain,onbeingasked,asto how many posting orders in rural areas wererecalled, modified and Whether any action was taken againstthose, who did not join the rural areas on being posted thereon transfer.On the other hand,it was pointed out duringthecourseofhearingbythelearnedcounselforthepetitionerthatthefirstthingthatwasdonebytheGovernment on the formation of the new State was to abolishall vacantposts.It wasalsopointedout by thelearnedAdvocate General that‘there are 579 hospitals in rural areasoutofwhich91hospitalsarewithoutDoctorssinceinception.Hereagain whynoactionwastakenagainst /

those Doctors or Why Doctors in service were not posted1‘11the rural areas has not been explained.It is no doubt truethat people1'11 the mral aleas are entitled to medical aid andattention but that by itself cannot be the basis to detennineWhetherornotthepmvisionrelatingtomandatoryruralserviceisproper.Providingpublichealth,sanitation,hospitalsanddispensariesisthejoboftheStateGovernments in View of Entry 6 of List II of the VII Scheduleandthisduty,beingawelfareStateitisexpectedtodischarge.Asitappearsfromthepleadings,sincethe.Governmentfindsitself unabletodischargeitsobligationenjoined upon it by the Constitution under the said Entry, ithashitupon.thebrightideaformakingruralservicemandatory for seeking admission to P.G. course.Thus, themessage appearsto be,if you do not do the rural service,you[will][ not][ be]permitted[to][ do]your Post-Graduation.,Isitnot arm—twisting?Mandatory Rural Service, however, is notapplicable[in][ case of][ those][ students]who are competing fortheAll .IndiaQuota.Thus,to putitplainly,a candidatedesiringto doPost—Graduation has no choice and Whetherhe likesit or not, and irrespective of his merit he has to dorural service, if he desires to do Post-Graduation.

20. In 1986 SC 1877 (Dinesh Kumar[~]Vs — Motialal NehruMedical College, Allahabad), While dealing with the questionof admission to M.B.B.S., B.D.S. and Post Graduate medicalcourses and reservation for All India basis,the Apex Courthad clearly observed that[“no ]weightage should be given to a\

\\.

7R

.

candidatcforruralservicerendemdbyhimsofarasadmiSsionstoPost Graduate coursesare concerned”.TheCourt further obselvcd:

«Even1f an undertakmg1s taken fmm such acandldate that after obtammg M Dor M SDegreeheW111settle down111 a ruralarea andservetheruralmasses,it wouldinallprobabilityservenousefulpurposebecauseintheabsenceoftherequisitefacilitiessuchashospital,medicalandsurgicalequipment,nursingetc.it would not be possibleforhimtogivetheadvantageofhishighermedicaleducation to the rural masses and the higher medicaleducation received by him would not be of any seiviceto the community”.

However, in 1992 (2) SCC 26 (Snehalata Patnaik[—]Vs[—]State of Orissa)it was suggested that for admission to PostGraduate courses weightage may be given up to a maximumof 5 % of marks in favour of in service candidates who havedone rural service for 5 years or more (emphasis supplied).“weHowever,theCourthastenedtoaddalsoclarifythatthese suggestions do not in any way confer any legal right onin-service students who have done rural service nor do thesuggestionshaveanyapplicationtotheselectionofthestudents up to the end of this year (emphasis supplied).Butin the case at hand and at the cost of repetition,it may heobseivedthatitis not a case wheretheGovernment hasprovidedfor somesmall weightagetocandidates whoaredesirous of taking up the Post Graduate examination.Onthe contrary, it has, as a matter of fact, made a cent per centreservation in favour of those who have done rural service,the result being even a candidate who may have secured agoldmedalintheM.B.B.S.and may havebeen a topper throughout his medical student career,will not be abletoacquirePost Graduation,if he has not doneruralservice,Wheraas a person who may havemeroly scrapped throughtheM.B.B.S.Coursewillbeabletotakeupthesaidexaluination, if he has done two years of rural service.Thus,notacademicmerit,butruralservicehasbeengivenimportance under therules.Prior tothis andit was notdisputedthatindifferentPostGraduatedisciplinesseatswere reserved for All India Quota, for general candidates and'in-seivicecandidates, but in View of clause 6.3, the categoryofinstitutionalcandidatesisgivenagobyeandafterexcluding the 25%seatsfor All India Quota seats,all theavailableseatsbecomereservedforonlythose whohaveserved the Government for a minimum period of two years.It is no doubt true that a Government has a right to frame apolicy[and][ that][ the][ Courts][ are]not to sit in judgment over thepolicy,butitisequallytruethatapolicymustnotbearbitrary, butit should be fair and not work any injustice.In the light of what has been discussed, the Court is of theopinion that the policy does not appear to be just and is alsoarbitrary and discriminatory.

21. During the course of arguments,reference was made'(7)to Dr.Preeti Shrivastava’s case (1999 SCC 120) by both,thecounselforthepetitioner[as]alsothecounselfor theState,each giving his own interpretation to what has beenheld therein.The issue, as is clear from the judgment, thatarose for consideration before the Constitution Bench in that

1

casewaswhetherapaxtfromprovidingressrvationforadmission to the Post Graduate[courses][ in][ Engineering][ and]Medicine for special categOIy candidates,it was open to theState to piescribe diEetent admission[criteria,][ in][ the][ sense][ of]for specialprescribing[different][ minimum][ qualifying][ marks,]categorycandidatesseeking admission under[the]reservedcategory.It was held by majority that standard[of][ education]and admission criteria can be laid down[under][ List][ I][ of][ Entry]66 andListIII of Entry 25 by Central Legislation[and][ that]the State’s competence under List[ III][ of][ Entry][ 25][ to][ control]or regulate higher education[is]subject to the standards solaid down by Union of India‘and inasmuch[as][ States][ have]competencetoprescriberulesforadmissiontoPostGraduatemedicalcoursessolongastheyarenotinconsistent withor donot adverselyaffect thestandardslaid downbytheUnionof Indiaoritsdelegate,It wasfurther heldthat once minimumstandards arelaid down,theStatesarecompetenttoprescribeanyfurtherqualification[for][ selecting][ better][ students as][ that][ would][ not]adversely alfect the standards[so][ laid][ down.]

22. Thelearnedcounselforthepetitionerlaidmuchemphasisonthefirstpartoftheobservationswhereaslearned counsel for theState laid emphasis on the secondpartof theobservationsmadeinthe judgment andinamanner of speaking, both submissions[to][ a][ limited][ extent,]seem to be proper.However, one has to see in the context[of]thecaseathand,whetherRule6.3whichhasbeen cocci/WW‘

bythePre—PGRu16srequin'ngm0yealsprescribedmandatory[rural][ service]is in the natureof, as observed[by]the Apex Court,“a further quah'ficationforselecting betterstudents”for thatis whatispermissible.Thus whatfallsefmm[the][ Apex][ Court][ is][ that][ no][ doubi][ under][ List][ I][ of][ Entry][ 66]it would befor theCentral Government[or]itsdelegatetoprescribe[the][ standard][ of][ education][ and][ admission][ criteria,]but thistheState may prescribe[any][ further]qualification,further qualification[has]to be for selecting[better][ students]andnaturallyaselectionofbetterstudentswouldnotadversely affect[nor][ any][ such]qualification[for][ selecting][ the]best, besaid[to][ be][ something][ which][ would][ adversely][ affect]thestandardlaid down by[the]Central Government[or]itsadelegatei.e.,Medical Council[of][ India.]Thus,as has beenheld,theState hasa right tocontrol education[including]medicaleducationbutonlysolongasthefieldisnotoccupied byany UnionLegislation.TheState cannot[also]impingeonstandardsininstitutionforhighereducationbecause this is[exclusively][ within][ the]purview[of][ the][ Union][ of]India.Whilerepellingthecontentionthatthenormsforadmissionhavenoconnectionwiththestandardofeducation or that[the][ rules][ of][ admission][ are][ covered][ only][ by]Entry 25 of List[ III,][ the][ Court,][ in]paragraph[36][ observed:]“It would not be correct to say that the norms foradmission have[no][ connection][ with][ the][ standard]of education,[or][ that][ the][ rules][ for][ admission][ are]covered only[by][ Entry][ 25]of ListIII.Norms[of]admissioncanhaveadirectimpactonthestandards of[education.]Of course,[there][ can][ be]rules for admission[which][ areconsistent]with[or]donotadectadverselythestandardsof

Ratio decidendi

education préscribed by the Union in exsrcise ofpowers[under][ Entry][ 66][ of][ List][ I.]For example, aStatemay,foradmissiontothepostgraduatemedicalcourses,lay‘down. quaHfications1'11additiontothose prescribed under Enhy 66ofListI.This would be consistent with promotinghigherstandardsforadmissiontothehighereducationalcourses.But anylowering of thenorms laid down can and does have an adverseeffectonthestandardsofeducationintheinstitutesofhighereducation.Standardsofeducation in an institution or college depend onvarious factorsSome of these are:

(1) the calibre of the teaching stam

(2) a proper syllabus designed to achieve ahigh level of education in the given spanof time;

(3) the student-teacher ratio;

(4) the ratio between the students and thehospital beds available to each student;

(5) thecalibre of the students admitted tothe institution;

(6) equipment andlaboratoryfacilities,orhospital facilities for training in the caseof medical colleges;

(7) adequate accommodation for the collegeand the attached hospital; and

(8) thestandardofexaminationsheldincludingthemannerinwhichthepapersareset andexaminedandtheclinical performance is judged.”

Further, the Court in paragraph 46 observed thus:

tr...wecannotagreeWiththeobservationsmade1nthat Judgment(StateofM P— Vs — N1ved1ta Jain)1981(4)[SCC][ 296][ to]theeEectthattheprocessofselectionofcandidatesforadmissiontoa medicalcollegehas noreal impact on the standard of medicaleducation;orthatthestandardofmedicaleducation really comesinto the pictureonly inthe course of studies1n the medical colleges orinstitutions after the selection and admiss1on ofthecriteria for selectionof candidates have an important bearing on thestandardof education which can beeffectivelyimpartedinthemedicalcolleges.......‘.... Of course,oncetheminimumstandardsarelaiddown by thc authority having the power to do[so,]any further qua1if'1cations laid down by[the][ State]which will lead to the selection of better studentscannot bechallengedonthegroundthatitis‘contraiyto Whathasbeenlaiddown bytheauthority concerned.But the action of the Stateis valid because it does not adversely impinge[on]thestandardsprescn'bed'[by]theappropriate

23. In the case at hand, the provisions of[Rule][ 6.3][ are][ not]being defended on the ground that[ it] presc1ibes[a][ standard]higher than that set down by the[Medical Council][ of][ India]and that theobject istoselect better candidates.On thecontraiy,it is being defended on the ground[that][ since][ the]State Government funds the medical colleges,it has a rightto lay down a criteria of its choice and because[it][ feels][ that]as doctors are not prepared to serve in[the][ local][ areas,]thecriteria will compel them to take[up][ rural]provision[of][ this]servicefor a periodof two years under the GovernmentiftheydesiretodoPostGraduationinMedicalSciences.Thus, the object obviously is not What[ it][ should][ be.]24.It-isnodoubttruethatinStateofPunjabVs.Davanand Medical College and Hospital[and][ others](2001(8)[SCC][ 664),]it was held that a proper balance[will][ have][ to]be struck both, by the Medical Council[of][ India][ and][ by][ the]Central and State Governments in [exercise][ of][ their][ respective]powers[and][ that][ the][ Medical Council][ of][ India][ a][ creature][ of]Statute,cannotbeascribedwithsuchpowerssoastoreduce the State Governments to nothing[on and][ in][ respect]of areas over which the States have[constitutional][ mandate]

4m

4m

andgoal[assigned]to themto beperfoxmed.But this wasobservedinthecontext‘ of thefactsinvolvedinthat caseWhere the challenge was to the[action][ of][ the][ State][ of][ Punjah]in lowering minimum qualifying[marks][ to][ 40%][ for][ speciality]subjectsanddoingawaywiththemaltogetherforbasicsubjects,contrarytoregulation9ofMedicalCouncilRegulations which prescribed[50%][ minimum][ marks.]Theobservationsweremorewithrespecttothepolicyofreservations for socially[and][ educationally][ backward][ classes.]However,in that casetheaction of theState of Punjabinreducing the lowering minimum qualifying[marks][ and][ doing]away with them altogether[for][ basic][ subjects][ was][ held][ to][ be]bad and struck down.In para19 of the judgmentit wasob served thus:

“We, therefore, find that the prescriptionmade by the appellants[reducing][ the][ minimum]marks to 40% in the entrance[examination][ for]considering the eligibility of the[candidates][ for]admissiontopostgraduatemedicalcoursesand in respect of the basic[subjects][ fixing][ no]minimum standard is plainly[in][ contravention]oftheRegulationsframedbytheMedical'CouncilofIndiaandthatpartofthenotiiication will have to be ignored.”

Consequently,it was ordered that if any[student][ had]secured less than 50% marks[that][ admission][ alone][ will][ have]to be cancelled.Thus, it is to be taken[as][ a][ settled]positionthat thestandardlaid down forniedical[education][ by][ the]Medical Council of India are binding[on][ the][ State][ and][ cannot]be diluted though the State[can]provide[higher][ or][ additional]standards or conditions but[ it.][should be][ for][ the]purpose[of]selectingbettercandidatesandnotforthepurposeof ExcludingthosewhoareotheIWiSEeligibleundertheRegulations &amed by the M.C.I. inasmuch as they possessthe requisite qualiecaiions.

25..7There can be no quarrel with the submissions of thecounsel for the State that right to higher education cannotbeequatedwiththefundamentalrightundertheConstitutionascan bededucedfromthedecisionof theApexCourtinUnniKrishnan.LP.and01's VstateofAndhra Pradesh£5 0:5 (AIR1993 SC 2178) whereinit didnot approve the decision in Miss. Mohini Jain V State ofKmnataka (AIR1992 SC 1858) which indicated the right ofeducationtobeafundamentalright.But,itcannotbedeniedthat wheninstitutionsforteachingand’impartingknowledgehavebeenestablishedforthepmposeofimparting education at all levels including P0st Graduate,itimplies that any person desirous of getting selected gets anopportunityfor securing admission to these institutions togain[knowledge][ or]gain[specialization.]To say that the State,in exercise of its obligation being a welfare State, will openinstitutionsforimpartingknowledgeandthatitwillfixnormsforadmissionaccordingtoitschoiceandthataprospectivecandidatewillhavenorighttoapproachtheCourt of law against non—consideration of his candidature orsomeprovisionof apolicy[which]tohimappearstobediscriminatory or takes away his right of consideration, will.nxnot be a reasonable, as this will give to the State an arbitlarykclude[many][ at][ its][ whim][ and][ fancy.]

ri\,

Hence,thougharighttohighEr education maynot beafundamentalrightbutnonetheless,sincethereareinstitutions and provisionsfor admissionthereto, a personwhose candidature has been Injected,[will][ have][ the][ right][ to]approachtheCourtof lawchallengingtheactiononthegroundthat maybeavailablethoughnotas breachof afundamental right.For, it should not be forgotten[that][ a][ writ]under Article 226 of the Constitution[of][ India][ is][ not][ only][ for]enforcementofanyrightconferredbyPartIlloftheConstitution of India[i.e.,] enforcement[of][ fundamental][ rights,]“forbutcanbealsoissuedanyotherpurpose”whichobviously means that if the Court hnds[a]particular[action][ to]be unjustihed,it can set it at naught in[exeicise][ of][ its][ writ]jurisdiction.

26. When we consider Rule 6.3,it covers only those whohave put in two years rural service[and][ excludes][ all][ others]though they possess the requisite qualification[laid][ down][ by]theMedicalCouncilforIndiafromconsiderationforadmissiontotheP.G.Courses.Itcannotbesaidandindeed, nor wasit contended that this was[with][ an][ idea][ or]intention of selecting the[best][ for][ one][ can][ visualize][ how][ the]standard of a young doctor working[in][ an][ ill—equipped,]ill-maintainedRuralPrimaryHealth tCentrewill improvehisknowledge or standard.It is common knowledge that[most]of the Rural Primary Health Centres,[which][ are][ areas][ where]reside,donotevenhavebasicfacilitiesandpoorinfrastructure to treat the really[ ill][ and][ needy.][ Most][ of][ these]

neither have any operation[theatm][ nor][ X—ray][ machin6,][ nor][ a]PathologicalClinic nor appropriate medicinos[for][ treatment]of seriousdiseasesandallsuchpatientsarereferredortrarlsfexredtotheurbanhospitalsorareforcedtogotoclinicsin urban areasfor treatment.Thus, how aprivatestudent whodesirestospecializeinSurgery,Radiology,Pathology or Orthopedics[or][ for][ that][ matter][ in][ any][ discipline]will bebetterequipped,bettertrainedandobtainhigherstandard than one serving in an[urban][ hospital][ or][ one][ who]has not put in anyservice under the government,[but][ has]doneprivatepracticeinhisownclinicorahospitalofrepute, is diiiioult to comprehend.[One][ fails][ to][ imderstand][ as]tohowtreatmentofroutinediseaseslikecoughcold,dianohea anddysenterywillraisethestandardor makesuch persons better equipped for[Post][ Graduation][ study][ vis~]a—visonewhohastotreatsimilarpatientseveninaThus, the action ofgovernment[hospital][ in][ an][ urban][ area.]thegovemmentinframingRule6.3,whichcompletelyexcludesthosewhohavenotputintwoyearsofruralservice, in the opinion of the Court,[cannot][ be][ an][ exercise][ of]power [under][ Entry][ 25][ of][ List][ III,][ but][ is][ a][ colourable][ exercise]of power for practically compelling one to do service[under][ a]PrimaryHealthCentreandasisobviousto make100%reservationof theavailableseatsfor in—servicecandidatesonly. Thus,the question, which needs to be considered,isWhether there can be cent percent reservation for[iii—service]candidates, as this would be the eifect[of][ the][ Rule][ 6.3,][ which]

l

is the subjsct matter of challenge.It is no doubt true thatthe Govemment has the. power to frame a policy and also laydown eligibility criteria, but both have to be reasonablo andshould not work to the prejudice of equally situated persons.As per the prevailing system, Post—Graduation was conhnedtothreecategories—AllIndiaQuota—InstitutionalorGeneralcandidatesandln-servicecandidatesandapercentage[was][ hxed][ for][ each][ category.][ But,][ under][ the][ Rules]inquestion,theinstitutionalcandidatesorfresher,howsoeverbrilliantcannotnowhopetohaveaPostGraduation unless he doesservice under a Rural PrimaryHealth Centre.

27. Learnedcounselfortheintervener whilesupportingthe State had invited the Court’s attention to the decision oftheBombayHighCourtincaseof Dr.AdityaShrikantKelkar85OthersV.Stateof Maharashtra(AIR1998Bomby 260).In that case what weighed the Court, amongstothers,wastheconsiderationthattheGovernmentwasspending large amount towards the medical education[and]that the rural people were also entitled to medical facilities.Thisisclearfromthefollowingpassageextractedtromparagraph[53][ of][ the]judgment,[which][ reads][ thus:]

“—————wefindthattheimpugnedGovernmentResolutionscannotbesuccessfully assailed as it is found that isopento theState Government to imposeadditionalconditions.TheStateGovernmentexpendslargeamountstowardsmedicaleducation whichisfarabovetheamountsrecoveredtowardsfees.The State Government is, therefore, .f Entitled to call upon[thc][ beneficiary][ of][ the]sxpenditureviz.thedoctorstoperformmedicalsewicesincothedoctorshavebenefitedfromthemedicaleducationState,it istheir duty toprovided[by][ the]medicalservice.TheStateperformGovernment is duty bound[to]provide[for]medical facility in[order][ to]promote publichealth.The State Government[is][ entitled]to ensurepublichealth andWelfareasmuch in rural areas[as][ in][ urban.]Callingupon the doctors[to]perform[rural][ service,]therefore, is fully justihed[......][ "]

28. There can be no[dispute][ that][ State][ is]providing[funds]for medical educau'on[but][ it][ should][ not][ be][ forgotten][ that][ it][ is]the duty of theState Governmentto provide for educationand indeed in a democratic[welfare][ State,][ this][ is][ expected][ of]‘the State.Saying that posts are Vacant[and][ doctors][ are][ not]toservein therural area is not sudicient.As apreparedmatter of fact,at the time of hearing[the][ Court][ had][ raised]to whether any advertisement[was][ issued]for thequery[as]selectionofdoctorsforbeingpostedinruralareasandwhether the posts could[not][ be][ filled][ because][ of non-receipt]ofapplicationsandalsoastohowmanytransfersandpostinginruralareaswerecancelledor changedbytheGovernment.Butthis wasnotforthcoming.Bethat asitmay,the Government may[consider][ if][ the][ situation][ is][ that]thepostsaregoingabegging,thereis noreason whytheGovernment,lookingtothe unemployment,hasnot takensteps for setting up[of][ a][ Rural][ Health][ Service.][ At][ any][ rate,][ if]it wasthoughtnecessarythatservicesundertheRuralServiceswouldbeaneligibilitycriteria,theGovernmentcould have made a reasonable provision[for][ those][ who][ have]

_

\

‘/

l/‘.r/[“]\

notdonethatservicemstcadofaxcludiugthematthethresholdorasthepetitionershadcontended,permittedthemtoundertaketheexaminationandprovisionallyselecting them[subject][ to][ the][ n'der][ that][ they][ would][ complete]the rutal service.According[to][ the]petitioners,the suddenchangeof theRules,which wereprevalentintheunifiedState, Waslike a bolt from[the][ blue][ and]it was only thosewhohadprobablyneverthoughtofdoingthePostGraduation have[suddenly]got[an][ opportunity][ to][ do][ so,]

29. InStateofU.P.andOthers VPradipTandon65others(1975(1)[SCC][ 267),]therquestion[for][ consideration]was whether[the][ reservation][ of][ seats][ in][ Medical][ Colleges][ in]favourof ruralareas,hillyareasandUttmkhandonthebasis that the[reservations are][ for socially][ and][ educationally]backward[classes][ was][ valid.][ The][ reservation][ made][ by][ State]GovernmentofU.P.inMedicalcollegesinfavourofcandidatescomingfromruralareaswasheldtobeun—constitutional[by][ the][ Supreme][ Court,][ as][ this][ was][ found][ to][ be]a caseof discrimination[in][ favour][ of][ the]majority of[rural]population[to][ the][ prejudice][ of][ the][ students][ drawn][ from][ the]generalcategmy.Inparagraph26of the judgment,theCourt ob served[that:]

"Eighty percentof the populationin theState of Uttar[Pradesh][ in][ rural][ areas][ cannot]be said to be[a][ homogeneous][ class][ by][ itself.]Theyarenotofthesamekind.Thereoccupation[is][ diiferent.]Their standards[are]different; Their[lives][ are][ different.][ Population]cannot be a[class][ by]itselfRural elementdoes not makeit a class.Tosuggest thattheruralareasaresociallyand educationallybackwardistohavereservation for the majority of the Sta."

30. Areference may also be madeto a decision of ApexCourtinthecaseof Dr.Naravan Shanna vDr.PankaiKumar Lehkar (2000(1)[SCC][ 44),][ where][ the][ challenge][ was]madetocertainprovisionscontainedinAssamMedicalColleges (Regulation of Admission to Post—Graduate[Courses)]Rules,1994.Amongst others,the challenge wasto Rule 4reservationfor 20%seatsfor doctors(iv),[which]providedappointedinStateHealth Services on regular basis.This’byRulewasquashedtheHighCourtof Assam,whichdecisionwasupheldbytheApexCourt.Therelevantpassage[reads][ thus:]

“.....Even if the Rule had provided for service inaruralarea,ithasbeenheldthattheclassification is not a valid one...[...”]

[Emphasis[Supplied]]

31. In thecase of K.Duraiswami85 another VState ofTamil Nadu and others (2001(2)[SCC][ 538),][ the][ challenge]was to the Government order dated 09-2-1999,[whereby][50%]of theavailableseatsfor Post—Graduate Medical Educationwere reserved for iii—service candidates on merit [basis][ and][ it]was further directed that 50% of seats[available][ in][ each][ of]the specialty shall be allotted exclusively to such candidates.TheGovernmentorderfurtherprovidedthatifsufficientnumber of candidatesis not available the vacancy shall befilledupbythenon-servicecandidatesmeritbasisand r6maim‘ng 50% availabla[seats][ for][ the][ open]quota,Court in paragraphs 8<35 9 obsErved thus:

“8.That the Government possess the[right]and authority to decide from[What][ sources]the admissionin educational institutionsortoparticulardisciplinesandcoursestherein haveto be made and that too inwhat proportion, is well established and[by]now a proposition well settled,[too.]It hasbeentheconsistentandauthoritativelysettledViewofthisCourtthatatthesuper—specialitylevel,inparticular,andeven at the postgraduate level reservations“protectiveofthekindknownasdiscrimination”infavourofthoseconsideredtobebackwardshouldbeavoidedasbeingnotpermissible.Reservation, even if it be claimed to[be]soin this case,for andin favour of the in—sexvicecandidates,cannot beequatedortreatedonparwithcommunalreservations envisaged under Article[15](4)or16(4)andextendedthespecialmechanicsoftheirimplementationtoensuresuchreservationstobetheminimum by not counting thoseselectedin open competition on the basis[of][ their]ownmerit asagainstthequotareservedon communal considerations.

9. Properly speaking,in these cases, weare concerned with the allocation of seatsforadmissionintheformofaquotaamongst in—service candidates on the onehand,andnon—serviceorprivatecandidates on the other and the method ormannerof workingoutinpracticetheallocation of seats among the members oftherespectivecategmy.CouldtheStateGovernmenthavelegitimatelymadeaprovisionallocating50%ofseatsexclusivelyinfavourofthein-servicecandidates and keep open the avenue forcompetitionfortheminrespectoftheremaining 50% along with others, denyinga fair contest in relation to a substantial orsizeable number of other candidates whoare not in service and who fall under thecategmyofnon-servicecandidates,Willitself be open to serious doubt. One suoh‘attempt seemsto have been put in issue The Apex before th€ Madras High Court which heldthat reservation in favour of the in—servicecwdidates for the academic year 1992-98should be conMedto 50% and awardingof twoadditionalmarks,insteadof oneadditional mark for each completed year ofservice in Primary Health Centres was un—constitutionaland whenthematter wasbroughttothisCourt,inthedecisionreportedinStateof TamilNaduVs.T,Dilipkumar, the decision of the High Courthas been upheld.This Court also furtherobservedthatthegovernmentshouldappointahighlyqualifiedcommitteetodetermine from year to year what,in fact,should be the percentage-wise reservationrequiredfortheill—servicecandidates,havingregardtothethenprevailingsituation and that the percentage of 50%shall, if found appropriate, be reduced.

32. In State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T. Dilip Kumar 85 Others {2001(8)SCC[700)][ the][ challenge][ was]to the order of the HighCourtatMadraswhich hadheldthatreservationforin-servicecandidatesin post graduate courses(both[diploma]anddegree)should be confined to 50% and that award oftwo additional marks for each completed year of serviceinPrimaryHealthCentres wasunconstitutional.Dismissingthe appeal, the Apex Court observed:

“4.Insofar as the additional mark awarded to in—servicecandidatesservinginruralareasisconcerned,thejudgmentofthisCourtinDr.Dinesh Kumar v.Motilal Nehru Medical College istheanswertotheargumentthatin—servicecandidatesservinginruralareaswill,afteracquisition of postgraduate degrees, return to ruralareas.The observations inthis behalf have beencited by the High Court, and in our View, rightlyi “6.In our View, the High Court was right in theView thatit took,that no reservation beyondhftypercentisordinarilycontemplatedandthis percentagciswhattheHighCourtallowed.Instm'kjngdownthsadditionalmarkforin—servicecandidatesservinginrural areas,the High Courtfollowed the decision of this C0111."

Thisdecision has beentakennoteof andfollowed by theApexCourtinitssubsequentdecisioninPle—PGMedicalSangharsh Committee & AnotherVDr.Bairang Soni andOthers(2001(8)[sec][ 694).]

33. Thus, from What has been discussed above,it is clearthat neither additional marks can be awarded to candidatesfor rural service nor canall availableseats be reservedforruralcandidatesthoughapercentagethereofmaybereserved for them.By analogy and applying this test to thecase at hand there is no getting away from the fact that theeffect of Rule 6.3 is that there is cent percent reservation foriii—servicecandidates——becauseonlythosewhohaveservedundertheGovernment,whetherinatemporary,permanent[or][ an][ ad-hoc]][ contractual][ capacity][ can][ hope][ to][ do]post graduation[in][ the][ State][ of][ Chhattisgarh.][ Even][ one][ who]hasdevotedhisserviceinaruralareaasaprivatepractitioner[is][ debarred][ from][ taking][ up][ the][ Pre—P.G.]test, ashe is not eligible under the said Rule.Thus, will it be wrongtoconcludethatnotpracticeintherural area butonlyGovernmentservicein any capacity ina' rural area istheintention behind Rule 6.3 ?In the opinion of the Court, theanswer has to be in the ail'umau've.It is no doubt true thattheStatedefendsitsactioninframingRule6.3ontheground[that][ it]provides[eligibility][ criteria][ and][ nothing][ more.]

How€var, that[is][ not][ enough.]For deciding whether[the][ said]provision[is]good[or][ bad,][ what][ has][ to][ be][ seen,][ in][ the][ opinion]of the Court, would[be][ the][ effect][ that][ follows][ if][ that][ provision]istocontinueandforthispurpose,theCourtwillberequiredto removetheVeil.Oncethisis done,it becomesclear"that only “in—service candidates”i.e,,those who haverendered service[in][ a][ Primary][ Rural][ Health][ Centre][ under][ the]Government in[any][ capacity][ whatsoever][ will][ alone][ be][ entitled]totakeupthePre—PGtesttotheexclusionof allothershowsoever[brilliant][ they][ may][ be.]It, therefore,[follows][ that][ by]incorporating[Rule][ 6.3][ the][ Government][ has][ tried][ to][ achieve]orprovidedforcentpercentreservationforin-servicecandidates[‘sometliing,][ which][ itcould][ not][ do][ directly,][ has]been done indirectly.Accordingly,[there][ is][ no][ escape][ from]the conclusion[that][ the]provision[contained][ in][ Rule][ 6.3][ as][ it]stands,cannot be[sustained][ and]it isliable to be[annulled]and it is ordered[accordingly.]

34. Asaresultofthediscussionsaforesaid,theto be andis hereby allowed[on][ the]groundpetition[needs]mentioned[above.]Accordingly,[the][ consequent][ action][ taken]on the basis [of][ Rule][ 6.3][ of][ the][ Pre—]P.G.Rules 2002,[as]itexistedcannotalsobesustained.ItfollowsthattheGovernment cannottill upall the seats[on][ the][ basis of][ the]impugned Pre—P.G.test held byit.However,it will be opento the Government[to][ make][ a]provision[nxing][ a][ percentage][ of]seatsforin-servicecandidatesandforfreshersi.e.

"

'3‘

institutionalcandidates.Totheextentof th€r€serva1ionmade,théGovernmentmay,ifitsodesires,selectthecandidatesforthein—serviceseats from out of those whohave taken the Pre—P.G. Test 2002 and hold a test for fillinguptheseatswhichmaybeprovidedforthefreshersorinstitutional candidate or,in its discretion,it may conducta fresh test for both the categories.

35. There shall however be no order as to costs.

Sd/-P.C-NaikJudge