- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Upholds West Bengal...
Supreme Court Upholds West Bengal Condition Of 3 Years Minimum Service In Remote Areas For In-Service Quota
Mehal Jain
11 March 2022 1:51 PM GMT
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the plea of 4 doctors challenging the West Bengal state notification of October, 2021 extending the condition of three years' minimum service in remote/difficult/ rural areas for being considered as eligible for the in-service quota.The effect of the notification is that for availing of state quota seats in post- graduate medical courses, the...
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the plea of 4 doctors challenging the West Bengal state notification of October, 2021 extending the condition of three years' minimum service in remote/difficult/ rural areas for being considered as eligible for the in-service quota.
The effect of the notification is that for availing of state quota seats in post- graduate medical courses, the in-service candidates would be required to serve in rural/ remote/difficult areas for a minimum of three years as on April 30 of the academic year for being considered as eligible for the benefits of reservation of 40% of the seats in the state government/private colleges in West Bengal. The petitioners were graduate doctors who are serving as Medical Officers in different hospitals in the state and have all qualified in the NEET-PG Examination, 2021.
The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant was hearing an SLP against the January 18 order of the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court on a writ petition where, as recorded in the impugned order, "the essential challenge is of notification dated 8th October, 2021 which, according to the petitioners, has extended the condition of three years' minimum service in remote/difficult/ rural areas for in service quota which according to the petitioners was not part of the rules or the Supreme Court order". The Single Judge had disposed off the writ petition by passing the following order-"There is no scope for any interim order at this stage. However, on the prayer of the learned counsel appearing of the petitioners, let the representation made by the petitioners to the Special Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare and received by the latter on 30th December, 2021 be considered by the recipient of the representation by disposing of the reasoned order. The reasoned order shall be passed within two weeks from the date of communication of this order upon hearing all relevant parties. A copy of the reasoned order shall be made available to the petitioners within four days from the date on which such reasoned order is passed." On February 14, a division bench of the High Court dismissed as non-maintainable the appeal against the Single Judge's order.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan for the petitioners advanced, "Couple of developments since the last date (March 4, when notice was issued)- we have formally been rejected on 9 March. The reason for the rejection is the fact that we haven't done this three-year service in rural areas. Your Lordships would recall that my argument last time was that since the notification by the state of West Bengal had come on 8 October 2021, which is a month and a half after the exam was taken and definitely after the NEET announcement, the bulletin etc, they could not have made that change after the exam was taken, after the game was already in play. The extant notification is of 18 April 2013. This notification, among the notification by other states of Tamil Nadu etc, which provided for in-service considerations, were all subject matter of that Constitution bench judgment in the Tamil Nadu medical officers case (2021 6 SCC 568; dated August 31, 2020). This notification was also challenged among the notification of various states. In para 98 of the judgment, the bench said that the appeals are allowed and the writ petition before the High Court stands dismissed. Therefore, that notification was restored which had been struck down by the High Court. The date of this Constitution bench judgment is 31 August 2020. For the PG exam 2021, this notification was in force, pursuant to the Supreme Court judgment."
Continuing, he advanced, "The constitution bench says 'The memorandum dated 18th April, 2013 is restored and the writ petition filed in the High Court at Calcutta (W.P. No.8990(W) of 2019) shall stand dismissed'. If Your Lordships see that notification, it makes no reference to this rural service, difficult area service. And this is the notification that applied. So we all take our exams in September 2021, results are declared on 28 September 2021 and it is only thereafter on 8 October 2021 that this notification comes in. This date your lordships have also taken note of in Neil Aurelio Nunes (EWS/OBC reservation in NEET-AIQ matter). In that reservation context, your lordships have listed all these dates. Your Lordships may recall that your Lordships considered this very issue of changing the rules of the game and Your Lordships decided to not interfere because the rules had already been there before the game started. Here it is completely opposite. In my submission, Your Lordships have gone through the entire history in Neil's case and it is in the same facts of PG. Therefore this belated requirement being thrust on us would not be entirely fair."
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the state of West Bengal, advanced, "In so far as this examination is concerned, this was not an issue either in the representations made or before the High Court. But that apart, this NEET examination is conducted by the central government. And this is basically an examination for determining an eligibility, they have to cross some minimum threshold and then it is the merit list which emerges. The state has no role to play at that stage. The state comes into the same when counselling is done and the seats have to be awarded. That is the point of time when the game as far as the state is concerned starts, which was not until January 25, 2022. And much before that the notification has been issued, as per the judgment of this court which expected that there should be such a qualification imposed. Just one paragraph before the paragraph 98 which my friend referred to, the constitution bench had observed, 'We also expect that the statutory instruments of the respective state governments providing for such separate channel of entry should make a minimum service in rural or remote or difficult areas for a specified period mandatory before a candidate could seek admission through such separate channel and also subsequent to obtaining the degree. On completion of the course, to ensure the successful candidates serve in such areas, the State shall formulate a policy of making the in-service doctors who obtain entry in postgraduate medical degree courses through independent in-service channel execute bonds for such sum the respective States may consider fit and proper'...this requirement has been endorsed by the five judge Constitution bench. And not only this judgment of five judges, but another judgment of two judge bench of this court- 2019 8 SCC 607- This requirement of working in rural areas has been upheld and the bond has also been upheld."
Justice Chandrachud put to Mr. Sankaranarayanan, "They have complied with the judgment of the Supreme Court of 31 August 2020. They have imposed the requirement within the state in-service quota, that those who really worked in remote, difficult areas of the state should be given benefit of the state in-service quota. It is a policy decision ultimately."
Mr. Dwivedi added, "The total seats are 1607 in the PG. In the state quota of 50%, there are 833 seats. Out of this, 40% alone is reserved in this quota, that is, 311. So the rest of the seats are sill available for those who have not done it, it is not that they are shut out totally. 60% of the seats are still there."
Justice Chandrachud observed, "Oh, so the entire state quota is not reserved. Oh, I see. So out of the 50%, less than half- that is 40%- has been reserved? So they can still compete for the others?"
Justice Chandrachud added to Mr. Sankaranarayanan, "Ultimately, it boils down to this that out of the 833 seats, this applies only to 311 seats. You still have the rest of the seats open for you to compete in."
Mr. Sankaranarayanan replied, "I have performed COVID service, which is also like service in a difficult area...If I choose this channel- the in-service channel, then I am not eligible to go through the other..."
Justice Chandrachud sought confirmation from Mr. Dwivedi if these candidates can still compete for the remaining seats in the state quota.
"I have instructions, but I can seek confirmation again...but now the first and second rounds of counselling are over and only mop-up and stray seats remain", replied Mr. Dwivedi.
Justice Chandrachud then told Mr. Sankaranarayanan, "You are not excluded, they have included you also, and they have implemented the judgment of the Supreme Court...And now counselling is also over, the process is over. We would not unsettle the process. We will leave it and not interfere. Nothing remains. We will dismiss this."
Case Title: Moitreyee Chowdhury And Ors. v. The State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Click Here To Read/Download Order
Next Story
