Minimum 3 Years 'Regular Service' Mandatory For In-Service Status To NEET PG Candidates: Bombay High Court

A division bench of Justice Mangesh S Patil and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar sitting at Aurangabad clarified the provisions of government resolution (GR) on Regulation For Selection of In-Service Medical Officers from the cadre of Maharashtra Medical and Health Services Group - A for Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses.

“Unlike clause 5.2 (of the GR) which admits of even a temporary tenure to be counted for allotment of grace marks, clause 4.2 expressly lays down that for counting the minimum service of 3 years as the eligibility criterion, the service rendered on temporary basis will not be counted”, the court said.

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by a doctor seeking in-service candidate status for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for Post Graduate (NEET-PG) 2023

The petitioner Dr. Sandeep Ragade was appointed as a Medical Officer Class-I on a temporary basis in Paithan, Aurangabad, on June 1, 2016. After completing five years, he was granted a permanent appointment and posting at the Primary Health Center, Nandar, Paithan, effective from July 1, 2021, which he joined on July 13, 2021. Having worked in rural areas for more than three years, Ragade approached the authorities seeking a no objection certificate (NOC) to appear as an in-service candidate in NEET PG 2023. However, his application was rejected.

Thus, he approached the High Court challenging the order January 23, 2023 refusing the NOC. He appeared for NEET-PG 2023, securing 277 marks and claimed to be entitled to additional 30 percent marks as per the GR dated March 19, 2019.

Senior Advocate VD Sapkal for the petitioner argued that service rendered in remote and difficult areas, even on a temporary basis, is eligible for the grant of grace marks under clause 5.2 of the GR. He contended that as Ragade had initially served on a temporary basis for five years before being made permanent in a rural area, both periods of service should be considered for the benefit under clause 5.2.

Additional Government Pleader SB Pulkundwar for the State argued that for eligibility purposes, a candidate must have completed a minimum of three years of service in regular appointment. Additionally, he pointed out that Ragade appeared for NEET-PG 2023 without obtaining the necessary permission as mandated by clause 4.1.

Under clause 4.1 of the GR, prior permission from the Deputy Director of Health Services of the respective division is necessary for a candidate to appear for the exam. Candidates appearing without obtaining permission would not be relieved from their posting to complete the course. As per Clause 4.2, a medical officer must have been selected through a regular selection process and completed a minimum three years of service in a regular appointment, excluding service rendered under bond periods or temporary or contractual appointment.

Clause 5 of the GR is for grant of grace marks to medical officers serving in rural and difficult areas. Clause 5.2 states that candidates would be entitled to grace marks proportionate to the number of years of service in rural and difficult areas, including temporary service.

After perusing the relevant clauses of the GR, the court clarified that clause 4 pertains to the eligibility of a candidate to appear as an in-service candidate, while clause 5 addresses the grant of grace marks.

“For being eligible to appear for the examination a candidate must have put in 3 years of service in regular cadre as has been laid down in clause 4.2 whereas once having appeared for the examination having been found eligible and after obtaining the permission as contemplated under clause 4.1, by virtue of clause 5.2 such candidate would be entitled to grace marks and the years of service is to be counted including that is rendered in rural and difficult areas in addition to the regular employment”, the court held.

The court observed that Ragade had not completed three years of service in the permanent cadre and not taken prior permission to appear for the exam. Therefore, he was not entitled to the benefits sought, despite having appeared for the examination, the court held.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 3822 of 2023

Case Title – Dr. Sandeep S/o Ashokrao Ragade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.