High Court Upholds Haryana Policy Permitting In-Service Doctors Without Rural Service To Compete For Reserved PG Seats

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in-service doctors need not have rendered two years' service in rural, remote or difficult areas before becoming eligible for admission to postgraduate medical courses against the 40% in-service quota in Haryana, so long as they execute a bond to serve such areas for five years after acquiring the degree. [2026 LL (PH) 262]A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor dismissed a writ petition filed by a group of MBBS doctors who had sought to confine the in-service quota only to candidates with prior rural service to their credit.The Court further upheld, as a valid classification under Article 14, the State's decision to grant full pay during the PG course only to those in-service doctors who have completed two years in rural or difficult areas, while extending to the rest only protection of lien, seniority and continuity of service without salary."The notification issued by the State categorically provides that such in-service doctors would have to execute a bond undertaking to serve the State Government for five years in rural/remote/difficult areas after acquiring such postgraduate qualification. The object of the State policy is to provide better medical facilities to the common masses in the State. Such objective is adequately achieved by the doctors executing the requisite bond to serve in such rural/remote/difficult areas for a period of five years," the bench said.It added further that, "The State policy also carves out a distinction between those in-service doctors who have completed two years of posting in rural/remote/difficult areas and those who have not done so. For those who have actually worked in rural/remote/difficult areas for two years have been allowed to pursue postgraduate courses as in-service doctors with full salary along with all other available service benefits." However, the Court clarified that, those in-service doctors who have not rendered service in rural/remote/difficult areas have been denied salary during the period of their postgraduate study and the benefit to them is restricted to providing of lien and counting of services etc., without any salary to them.The petitioners, qualified MBBS doctors registered with their respective State Medical Councils, sought admission to M.D./M.S. courses in Government, Government-aided and private medical institutions in Haryana for the Academic Session 2024-25 against the 40% State quota reserved for in-service candidates of the Haryana Civil Medical Services and Haryana Civil Dental Services, including those serving in ESIC-run hospitals and autonomous bodies of the State.They sought directions restricting admission against those 40% seats only to candidates who had already rendered two years' service in rural, remote or difficult areas of the State. They also challenged Clause 2(2) of the notification dated 02.09.2024, which permitted all in-service HCMS/HCDS doctors to apply against the in-service seats irrespective of rural posting, and Clause 1 of the General Conditions of the notification dated 25.07.2024, under which an NOC could be granted to any in-service doctor who had completed two years of regular satisfactory service and cleared probation.Although admissions for the 2024-25 session had already concluded, the Bench chose to decide the matter on merits, observing that similar policies had been framed in subsequent years and that the issues, being recurring in nature, required adjudication.The petitioners argued that in Constitution Bench decision in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India, (2021) 6 SCC 568, in which the Supreme Court expressed the expectation that statutory instruments providing for a separate in-service channel should make minimum service in rural, remote or difficult areas mandatory before a candidate could seek admission through that channel, and also thereafter. It was contended that prior rural service alone justifies the separate entry, and relied on a Single Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Tania Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, WPA No. 1582 of 2022.The Haryana Government and the private respondents opposed the petition, contending that the power to create a separate channel flows from Entry 25 of List III and stands recognised in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association. It was urged that the policy already requires every in-service doctor securing admission to execute a bond to serve rural, remote or difficult areas for five years, which subserves the object of the separate channel. The State also defended the two categories it had created, full pay for those with two years' rural service, and service protection without pay for the rest, as a classification with a definite purpose.Tracing the long-running controversy from State of UP v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, (2016) 9 SCC 749, which had held that the State lacked jurisdiction to create a separate in-service channel to its...

High Court Upholds Haryana Policy Permitting In-Service Doctors Without Rural Service To Compete For Reserved PG Seats

Aiman J. Chishti

Court held prior rural service not mandatory if doctors undertake to serve rural areas for five years after completing the course.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

High Court Upholds Haryana Policy Permitting In-Service Doctors Without Rural Service To Compete For Reserved PG Seats

Aiman J. Chishti

Court held prior rural service not mandatory if doctors undertake to serve rural areas for five years after completing the course.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers