Dr. Vivek Kumar Pand... v. State Of U.P. Thru P...

1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Z. Zilani, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and perused the record.

2. The petitioners, who are the Medical Officers, are seeking admission in Postgraduate (P.G) course in the State Medical Colleges as 30% seats are reserved for them in the Medical Colleges. By means of Government Order dated 28th February, 2014 criterion for admission in P.G course were laid down. Since they all had completed 03 years service and had also attained the minimum cut-off marks they were enlisted in the eligibility list, yet their names are not in the merit list for the reason that they had not applied/submitted documents.

3. The Director General, Medical and Health Services, U.P had issued an order dated 21st March, 2016, whereby he had invited applications from all the eligible candidates to consider their candidature for admission in PG course. We are informed that total 576 candidates were found eligible and out of them only 144 had applied pursuant to the notice dated 21 March, 2016 till 5 April, 2016, that was the last date for submitting applications. In the meanwhile, the matter reached the Supreme Court on the question of eligibility criteria as well as procedure provided under Regulation 9(2) of the Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulation 2000. The Hon'ble Supreme Court issued following interim directions:-

“In the circumstances, we direct that the State Government shall as expeditiously as possible revise and redraw the merit list of the candidates keeping in view Regulation 9 of the Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 and giving to the eligible candidates such weightage as may be due to them for rendering service in notified rural and/or difficult areas and to grant admission to the candidates found suitable for the same on the basis of such redrawn merit list. This exercise shall be completed before 30 May, 2016, the last date fixed for granting of admission. The entire exercise so conducted shall however remain subject to the outcome of these proceedings.”

4. In view of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court above Mr. Sandeep Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondents were under obligation to redraw the merit list out of the eligible candidates who were 576 in number, but under the misconstruction of the order passed by the Supreme Court, respondents have redrawn the merit list of 144 candidates only who had applied for admission/submitted their documents prior to 5 April, 2016. He has put forth that this was not the intention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rather the Supreme Court was of the view that the merit list shall be redrawn of all the eligible candidates in view of Regulation 9 of the Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 by giving weightage to the eligible candidates for such services as may be determined for rendering services in notified rural and/or difficult areas and to grant admission to the candidates, who are suitable for the same on the basis of such redrawn merit list. In view of the aforesaid factual backdrop, he has submitted that respondents have acted upon in disregard to the order passed by the Supreme Court.

5. In reply, Mr. Z. Zilani, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that respondents have followed the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in toto and have redrawn the merit list out of the candidates who had submitted their application/documents pursuant to the notification dated 21 March, 2016. He further submitted that simultaneously Hon'ble Supreme Court had stipulated the period for completing the exercise of redrawing the merit list before 30 May, 2016 i.e last date fixed for admission, therefore, there was no occasion for respondents to enlarge the scope of exercise to redraw the merit list by considering all eligible candidates even who had not applied for. It was further put forth that nobody had come forward to raise any objection against the offer of application.

6. Whereas Mr. Sandeep Dixit learned Advocate has submitted that the stage of submission of documents for verification would have come later i.e after preparation of the merit list, therefore, the offer of applications as was proposed by the respondents before preparation of merit list was completely a fallacious exercise which would not have been acknowledged by the Court.

7. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court indisputably had issued directions to the State Government to revise and redraw the merit list of the candidates keeping in view Regulation 9 of the Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 and give to the eligible candidates such weightage as may be due to them for rendering service in the rural and/or difficult areas. Relevant part of Regulation 9 which was added after clause 9(2)(d) by the gazette notification dated 17.11.2009 is as under:-

“Further provided that in determining the merit and the entrance test for postgraduate admission weightage in the marks may be given as an incentive at the rate of 10% of the marks obtained for each year in service in remote or difficult areas up to the maximum of 30% of the marks obtained.

8. In terms of the regulations framed above, each and every eligible candidate who had rendered service in the notified areas, even for the period less than three years, are to be considered for preparation of merit list in accordance with Regulations. Mr. Z. Zilani, learned Additional Advocate General has shown the difficulty of the respondents to complete the exercise for preparation of a merit list of all the eligible candidates within such a limited period, therefore, we are not inclined to issue any compelling direction to the respondents to do the exercise of preparation of merit list of all the eligible candidates, even though they had not submitted applications/documents.

9. In view of the above circumstances, we do not feel it appropriate to interfere with such a matter at this stage. In the result the writ petition stands dismissed.