Holding

Regulation 9 is a complete code; its proviso to clause IV merely permits incentive marks for eligible in‑service candidates and does not constitute reservation, rendering the State’s reservation order invalid.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the validity of a Uttar Pradesh Government Order that reserved 30% of postgraduate medical degree seats for in‑service doctors, a scheme challenged as violative of Regulation 9 of the Medical Council of India (MCI) Post‑Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. The Court held that Regulation 9 is a self‑contained code and its proviso to clause IV merely permits the award of incentive marks (10% per year of service in notified remote or difficult areas, up to 30% of NEET marks) and does not create a reservation of seats. Consequently, the State Order was declared ultra‑violet and the High Court’s quashing of it was affirmed, but the Court modified the operative direction to require admissions for the academic year 2016‑17 onward to be conducted strictly in accordance with Regulation 9, including the incentive‑mark provision. The Court also clarified that the interim order applies prospectively only to admissions from AY 2016‑17, not to the completed admissions of AY 2015‑16. The appeals and the writ petition were dismissed, and the parties were directed to follow the merit‑list procedure prescribed by Regulation 9.

Issues considered

Whether Regulation 9 of the MCI Post‑Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, allows reservation of seats for in‑service candidates in postgraduate degree courses.
Whether the proviso to clause IV of Regulation 9, which authorises weightage of marks for service in remote/difficult areas, is constitutionally valid under Article 14.
Whether the Uttar Pradesh Government Order dated 28‑Feb‑2014 providing 30% reservation for in‑service candidates is ultra‑violet to Regulation 9.
Whether the High Court’s direction to prepare a fresh merit list and the Supreme Court’s interim order should have prospective effect on admissions for AY 2015‑16 or only on AY 2016‑17 onward.
Whether the State can create a separate channel or reservation for in‑service candidates beyond the incentive‑mark scheme.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art. 14, s. Art. 66 of List I
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. 20, s. 33

Subjects

Medical Council of IndiaRegulation 9Post‑Graduate Medical EducationNEETIncentive marksReservationArticle 14Merit listIn‑service candidatesRemote and difficult areas

Judgment

(2016] 6 S.C.R. 571

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. A
v.
DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN
(Civil Appeal No. 8047of2016)
AUGUST 16, 2016 B

[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND DR. D.Y.
CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions:
Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education c
Regulatio11s, 2000 - Regn. 9 - Proviso to clause IV of Regn. 9 -
Legality of - Held: Regn. 9 is a complete Code - Proviso to clause
IV of Regn. 9 predicates that in determining the merit of candidates
in-service of Government/public Authority, weightage in the marks
may be given as an incentive @ 10% of the marks obtained for
D
each year of service in specified remote or difficult areas of the
State upto the maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in NEET -
Provision for determining inter-se merit of the candidates including
by giving weightage of marks as incentive to eligible in-service
candidates who have worked in notified remote or difficult areas in
the State, is just and reasonable - Liberal interpretation does 11ot E
provide for 30% reservation for in-service candidates, but only of
giving a weightage in the form of i11centive marks as specified to
the class of i11-service candidates, served in 11otified remote and
difficult areas in the State - Mere hypothesis that the State
Government may take a11 improper decisio11 whilst notifying the area
F
as remote a11d difficult, ca11not be the basis to hold that Regn. 9 and
in particular proviso to Clause IV is unreasonable - Thus, the
procedure evolved in Regn. 9 in general and the proviso to Clause
(IV) in particular is just, proper and reasonable and also fulfill the
test of Art. J.I, bei11g in larger public interest - Further, the State
Governments across the country are not in a position to provide G
health care facilities in remote and difficult areas in the State for
want of Doctors - Provision in the form of granti11g weightage of
marks was to give i11centive to the in-service candidates and to
attract more graduates to join as Medical Officers in the State Health.
Care Sector - On facts, High Court was justified in quashing the
H
571
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 6 S.C.R.

A Government Order dated 28.02.2014 providing for reservation to
in-service candidates, being violative of Regn. 9 as in force -
However, the operative direction by the High Court is modified to
the effect that admission process for Academic Year 2016-17
onwards to the Post Graduate Degree Course in the State should
proceed as per Regn. 9 including by giving incentive marks to
B
eligible in-service candidates in terms of proviso to Clause IV -
Constitution of India - Art 14.
Disposing of the appeals and the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Regulation 9 of the Medical Council of India
c Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 is a complete·
Code regarding the procedure to be followed for admissions to
medical courses and a provision for determining inter-se merit of
the candidates including by giving weightage of marks as incentive
to eligible in-service candidates who have worked in notified
remote or difficult areas in the State, is just, reasonable and
D necessary in larger public interest. [Para 39) (610-D-E]
1.2 A priori, it mu.st be held that the relief claimed in the
application filed by the State Government is an ingenious way to
overcome the unconditional and unequivocal statement made
before this Court on 12.05.2016. The State Government is obliged
E to adopt a procedure as is stipulated by the Central Act and
Regulations framed thereunder and noted in the interim order
dated 12.05.2016. Regulation 9(2) specifically deals with the
process of "determining the academic merit" of the eligible
candidates. Indeed, the primary consideration for determining
F the academic merit of the candidates is the marks obtained by
the respective candidates in the common competitive test or
centralized competitive test held by the concerned Authority. The
third proviso in Regulation 9(2) is relevant. It envisages that in
determining the merit, weightage may be given at the rate of
lOo/o of the marks obtained for each year in-service in remote or
G difficult areas upto the maximum of 30% marks obtained in the
common examination by the candidates. This Regulation does
not envisage reservation of seats for the Post Graduate "Degree"
Courses, unlike the express provision which is made in the same
Regulation to provide reservation of seats for in-service
H candidates in "Diploma" courses. [Para 17) [591-A-D]
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN 573

1.3 It is well established that the State has no authority to A
enact any law muchless by executive instructions that may
undermine the procedure for admission to Post Graduate Medical
Courses enunciated by the Central Legislation and Regulations
framed thereunder, being a subject falling within the Entry 66 of
List I, Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The procedure for
8
selection of candidates for the Post Graduate Degree Courses is
. one such area on which the Central Legislation and Regulations
must prevail. [Para 20) (595-A-R)
Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) v. State of MP. 1999 (1) Suppl.
SCR 249: (1999) 7 SCC 120 - relied on.
c
1.4 Regulation 9 is a composite provision prescribing
procedure for selection of candidates - both for Post Graduate
"Degree" as well as Post Graduate "Diploma" Courses.
Regulation 9 mandates that there shall be a single National
Eligibility-cum~ Entrance Test (NEET) to be conducted by the
designated Authority. Clause (Ill) provides for eligibility for D
admission to any Post Graduate Course in a particular academic
year. Clause (IV) is the relevant provision. It is a provision
mandating admission of candidates strictly as per the merit list of
eligible candidates for the respective medical courses in the State.
This provision, however, contains a proviso. It predicates that in E
determining the merit of candidates who are in-service of
Government or a public Authority, weightage in the marks may
be given by the Government/Competent Authority as an incentive
at the rate of 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service
in specified remote or difficult areas of the State upto the
maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in NEET. This provision F
even if read liberally does not provide for reservation for
in-service candidates, but only of giving a weightage in the form
of incentive marks as specified to the class of in- service
candidates (se..Ved in notified remote and difficult areas in the
State). [Para 21) (595-C-E, G-H; 596-A-BJ G
1.5 From the plain language of this proviso, it is amply clear
that it does not envisage reservation for in-service candidates in
respect of Post Graduate "Degree" Courses. This proviso
postulates giving weightage of marks to "specified in-service
H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A candidates" who have worked in notified remote and/or difficult
areas in the State - both for Post Graduate "Degree" Courses as
also for Post Graduate "Diploma" Courses. Further, the
weightage of marks so allotted is required to be reckoned while
preparing the merit •list of candidates. Thus understood, the
Central Enactment and the Regulations framed thereunder do
B
not provide for reservation for in-service candidates in Post
Graduate "Degree" Courses. [Paras 22, 23] [596-C-D]
1.6 The admission process in the instant case is governed
by the Regulations which have come into force from Academic
Year 2013-14. This Regulation is_ a self-contained Code. There is
c nothing in this Regulation to even remotely indicate that a
separate channel for admission to in-service candidates must be
provided, at least in respect of Post Graduate "Degree" Courses.
In contradistinction, however, 50% seats are earmarked for the
Post Graduate "Diploma" Courses for in-service candidates, as
D is discernible from Clause (VII). If the Regulation intended a
similar separate channel for in-service candidates even in respect
of Post Graduate "Degree" Courses, that position would have
been made clear in Regulation 9 itself. In absence thereof, it
must be presumed that a separate channel for in-service
candidates is not permissible for admission to Post Graduate
E "Degree" Courses. Thus, the State Government, in law, had no
authority to issue a Government Order to provide to the contrary.
Hence, the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the said
Government Order being contrary to the mandate of Regulation
9 of the Regulations of 2000, as applicable from Academic Year
F 2013-14. [Para 23J [596-F-H; 597-A-B]
1.7 Providing 30% reservation to in-service candidates in
Post Graduate "Degree" Courses is not permissible. It does not
however, follow that giving weightagc or incentive marks to
in-service candidates for Post Graduate "Degree" Courses entails
G in excessive or substantial departure from the rule of merit and
equality. For, Regulation 9 recognizes the principle of giving
weightage to in-service candidates while determining their merit.
In that sense, incentive marks given to in-service candidates is
in recognition of their sen'ice reckoned in remote and difficult
areas of the State, which marks are to be added to the marks
H
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN 575

obtained by them in the NEET. That is a legitimate and rational A
basis to encourage the Medical Graduates/Doctors to offer their
services and expertise in remote or difficult areas of the State for
some time. Indisputably, there is a wide gap between the demand
for basic health care and commensurate medical facilities, because
of the inertia amongst the young doctors to go to such areas.
B
Thus, giving specified incentive marks (to eligible in-service
candidates) is permissible differentiation whilst determining their
merit. It is an objective method of determining their merit. [Para
24) [597-E-H; 598-A)
1.8 The real effect of Regulation 9 is to assign specified
marks commensurate with the length of service rendered by the c
candidate in notified remote and difficult areas in the State linked
to the marks obtained in NEET. That is a procedure prescribed
in the Regulation for determining merit of the candidates for
admission to the Post Graduate "Degree" Courses for a single
State. This serves a dual purpose. Firstly, the fresh qualified D
Doctors will be attracted to opt for rural service, as later they
would stand a good chance to get admission to Post Graduate
"Degree" Courses of their choice. Secondly, the Rural Health
Care Units run by the Public Authority would be benefitted by
Doctors willing to work in notified rural or difficult areas in the
State. A Regulation such as this subserves larger public interest. E
[Para 28] [600-B-DI
1.9 Regulation 9 does not permit preparation of two merit
lists. It prescribes the basis for determining the eligibilities of
the candidates including the method to be adopted for determining
the inter se merit, on the basis of one merit list of candidates F
appearing in the same NEET including by giving commensurate
weightage of marks to the in-service candidates. [Para 29] [601-
G-H; 602-A)
1.10 Regulations have been framed by an Expert Body based
on past experience and including the necessity to reckon the G
services and experience gained by the in-service candidates in
notified remote and difficult areas in the State. The proviso
prescribes the measure for giving incentive marks to in-service
candidates who have worked in notified remote and difficult areas
in the State. That can be termed as a qualitative factor for H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A determining their merit. Even the quantitative factor to reckon
merit of the eligible in-service candidates is spelt out in the
proviso. It envisages giving of incentive marks at the rate of
10% of the marks obtained for each year of service in remote
·and/or difficult areas up to 30% of the marks obtained in NEET.
B It is an objective method of linking the incentive marks to the
. marks obtained in NEET by the candidate. Accordingly, some
weightage marks given to eligible in-service candidate linked to
performance in NEET and also the length of service in remote
and/or difficult areas in the.State by no standard can be said to be
excessive, unreasonable or irrational. This provision has been
C brought into force in larger public interest and not merely to
provide institutional preference or for that matter to create
separate channel for the in-service candidate, muchless
reservation. It is unfathomable as to how such a provision can be
said to be unreasonable or irrational. [Para 30] (602-A-C, F-G)
D 1.11 In the instant proceedings, however, large number of
candidates who earlier found place in the merit list have been
affected by the fresh merit list prepared in terms of Order of this
C.ourt dated 12.05.2016. As a result of giving effect to Regulation
9, the fresh list has thrown up a different argument for
consideration. The in-service candidates who had secured
E relatively less marks in NEET have been placed high up in the
order of merit consequent to addition of incentive marks @ 10%
of the marks for each year of service in the remote and/or difficult
areas upto the maximum of 30% of marks obtained in NEET
(CET). The rights of such candidates to be considered for
F admission, is not affected. What is affected is the opportunity to
get admission in a college or subject of their choice. There can,
however, be no right to get the subject or college of one's choice.
The provision in the shape of Regulation 9 is to determine the
merit of the competing candidates. Provision for giving incentive
marks to in-service candidates is permissible in law; and thus
G the proviso to Clause IV in Regulation 9 must be upheld in larger
public interest. That provision has been introduced, inter-alia,
· also to address the deficiency and lack of response of graduate
doctors to serve in remote or difficult areas in the State. The
scarcity of doctors in villages has been felt for quite some time
H
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN 577

for which the provision in the form of proviso to Clause IV of A
Regulation 9 was necessitated. [Para 33) (604-G-H; 605-A-C]
1.12 Regulation 9 per se makes no distinction between
Government and non-Government colleges for allocation of
weightage of marks to in-service candidates. Instead, it mandates
preparation of one merit list for the State on the basis of results B
in NEET. Further, regarding in-service candidates, all it provides
is that the candidate must have been in-service of a
Government/public Authority and served in remote and difficult
areas notified .by the State Government and the Competent
Authority from time to time. The Authorities are, therefore,
obliged to continue with the admission process strictly in
c
conformity with Regulation 9. The fact that most of the direct
candidates who have secured higher marks in the NEET than
the in-service candidates, may not b~ in.a position to get a subject
or college of their choice, and are likely to secure a subject or
college not acceptable to them, cannot be the basis to question · D
the validity of proviso to Clause IV of Regulation 9. The purpose
behind proviso is to encourage graduates to join as medical
officers and serve in notified remote and difficult areas of the
State. The fact that for quite some time no such appointments
have been made by the State Government also cannot be a basis
E
to disregard the mandate of proviso to Clause IV - of giving
weightage of marks to the in-service candidates who have served
for a specified period in notified remote and difficult areas of the
State. [Para 34) [606-E-H; 607-A]
1.13 The setting in which the proviso to Clause IV has been
i~erted is of some relevance. The State Governments across
F
the ~9Untry are not in a position to provide health ,care facilities
in remote and difficult areas in the State for want of Doctors. In
fact there is a proposal to make one year service for MBBS
students to apply for admission to Post Graduate Courses 1 in ·
remote and difficult areas as compulsory. The ptovision in the G
form of granting weightage of marks, therefore, was to give
incentive to the in-service candidates and to attract more
graduates to join as Medical Officers in the State Health Care
, Sector. The provision was first inserted in 2012. To determine
the academic merit of candidates, merely securing high marks in
H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A the NEET is not enough. The academic merit of the candidate
must also reckon the services rendered for the common or public
good. Having served in rural and difficult areas of the State for
one year or above, the incumbent having sacrificed his career by
rendering services for providing health care facilities in rural
areas, deserve incentive marks to be reckoned for determining
B
merit. Notably, the State Government is posited with the
discretion to notify areas in the given State to be remo'te, tribal
or difficult areas. That declaration is made on the basis of decision
taken at the highest level; and is applicable for all the beneficial
schemes of the State for such areas and not limited to the matter
c of admissions to Post Graduate Medical Courses. Not even one
instance has been brought to the notice to show that some areas
which are not remote or difficult areas has been so notified. The
mere hypothesis that the State Government may take an improper
decision whilst notifying the area as remote and difficult, cannot
be the basis to hold that Regulation 9 and in particular proviso to
D
Clause IV is unreasonable. Thus, the procedure evolved in
Regulation 9 in general and the proviso to Clause (IV) in
particular is just, proper and reasonable and also fulfill the test of
Article 14 of the Constitution, being in larger public interest.
[Para 35) [607-E-F; 608-A-E)
E
1.14 Ordinarily, as the subject matter of challenge before
the High Court was pertaining to Academic Year 2015-16, the
dispensation directed in terms of Order dated 12th May 2016
should apply thereto. However, considering the fact that the said
admission process has been completed and all concerned have
F acted upon on that basis and that the candidates admitted to the
respective Post Graduate Degree Courses in the concerned
colleges have also commenced their studies, it may not be
appropriate to unsettle that position given the fact that neither
the direct candidates nor the eligible in-service candidates who
had worked in remote and/or difficult areas in the State approached
G the Court for such relief. It is only the in-service candidates who
had not worked in remote and/or difficult areas in the State
approached the Court for equating them with their counterparts
who had worked in remote and/or difficult areas in the matter of
.
reservation of seats for in-service candidates. If at this distance
~.:,..

H
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN 579

of time, the settled admissions were to be disturbed by quashing A
the entire admission process for Academic Year 2015-16, it would
inevitably result in all the seats in the State almost over 500 in
number remaining unfilled for one academic year; and that the
candidates to be admitted on the basis of fresh list for Academic·
Year 2015-16 will have to take fresh admission coinciding with
B
the admissions for Academic Year 2016-17. That would
necessitate doubling the strength of seats in the respective
colleges for the current Academic Year to accommodate all those
students, which may not be feasible and is avoidable. [Para 36]
(608-F-H; 609-A-C]
1.15 The High Court was justified in quashing the c
Government Order providing for reservation to in- service
candidates, being violative of Regulation 9 as in force. However,
the operative direction given by the High Court is modified to
bring it in conformity with the direction contained in the interim
order dated 12•h May, 2016 and instead it is directed that D
admission process for Academic Year 2016-17 onwards to the
Post Graduate Degree Course in the State should proceed as
per Regulation 9 including by giving incentive marks to eligible
in-service candidates in terms of proviso to Clause IV of
Regulation 9 (equivalent to third proviso to Regulation 9(2) of
the Old Regulations. This arrangement is likely to affect some of E
the direct candidates, whose applications were already processed
by the competent Authority for concerned Academic Year 2016-17.
However, their admissions cannot be validated in breach of or
disregarding the mandate of Regulation 9, as in force. (Para 37]
[609-E-G) F
1.16 The view taken by the High Court that the direction to
prepare fresh merit list vide interim order dated l2 1h May 2016
was in respect of only such eligible in-service candidates as had
submitted· applications for admission to Post Graduate Degree
Courses for the relevant academic year within stipulated time, is G
upheld. The direction in the interim order wa§. not to consider all
similarly placed persons (eligible in-service candidates)
irrespective of whether they had made applications for admission
to Post Graduate Degree Courses or otherwise. [Para 38) (610-
B-D]
H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A State of MP. & Ors. v. Gopal D. Tirthani & Ors. 2003
(1) Suppl. SCR 797: 2003 (7) sec 83 - held
inapplicable.
Snehelata Patnaik (Dr.) v. State of Orissa (1992) 2 SCC
267 - relied on.
B Sudhir N. and Ors. v. State of Kera/a and Ors. 2015 (1)
SCR 884 : (2015) 6 SCC 685; AIIMS Students Union v.
AIIMS & Ors. 2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 79 : 2002 (1) SCC
428; Dinesh Kumar (Dr.) (II) v. Motilal Nehru Medical
College 1986 (3) SCR 345: (1986) 3 SCC 727;
c Narayan Sharma (Dr.) v. Pankaj Sharma Kr. Lenkar
1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 364: (2000) 1 SCC 44; State of
U.P. v. Pradip Tandon (1975) l SCR 267; State of
Kera/a v. T.P. Roshana 1979 (2) SCR 974 : (1979) 1
SCC 572; MCI v. State of Karnataka 1998 (3) SCR
740:(1998) 6 sec 131 - referred to.
D
Case Law Reference
2015 (1) SCR 884 referred to Para4
1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249 relied on Para20
2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 79 referred to Para 24
E 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 797 held inapplicable Para 31
1986 (~) SCR 345 referred to Para 25
(199~) 2 sec 267 relied on Para 28
1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 364 referred to Para 25
(197~) 1 SCR 267 referred to Para25
F
1979 (2) SCR 974 referred to Para27
1998 (3) SCR 740 referred to Para27
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDrCTION: Civil Appeal No. 8047 of
2016.
G From the Judgment and Order dated 07.04.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No. 34118of2015
WITH
C. A. Nos. 8048, 8049-51, 8052 and 8053 of2016
H W. P. (C) 372 of2016.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN 581

Ranjit Kumar, SG, Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Harin P. Rawal, K. K. A
Venugopal, Sanjay Hegde, Gopal Subramanayam, Ajay Kumar Misra,
K. V. Bishwanathan, P. S. Patwaliya, Yatindra Singh, Ashok H. Desai,
Dinesh Dwivedi, R. K. Ojha, Sr. Advs., lrshad Ahmad, AAG, Abhay
Kumar, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Goutham Shivshankar, Rahat Bansal,
Rohit Bhat, Bipin Aspatwar, Ms. Fozia Rahman, Ms. Puja Jain, D. V.
B
Singh, Ms. Akshana Singh, Ms. Anuradha D. Mishra, Ms. Tulika
Mukherjee, Mis. Anuradha & Associates, Ajay Kumar Singh, Prakash
Gautam, Sameer Kr. Tiwari, Ms. Sheenu Chauhan, Ajay Bhargava, Mrs.
Vanita Bhargava, Aseem Chaturvedi, Ms. Mehrunisha Anand, Mis.
Khaintan & Co., Abhish Kumar, Ajay Singh, Ms. Archana Singh, Durga
Vijay Singh, Arijeet Singh, A. S. Pundir, Rahul Pratap, Abhisth Kumar, c
Kush Chaturvedi, Ajay Kumar Singh, Bipin Pradip Aspatwar, Gaurav
Sharma, Dhawal Mohan, Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatra, Ms. Vara
Gaur, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, D. S. Mahra, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Abhishekh
Atreya, Arunabh Chowdhury, Rahul Pratap, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Ms.
Mona K. Rajvanshi, Ramnesh Jerath, Taru Gupta, Abhay Kumar, A. S.
D
Pundi, Gaurav Sharma, Mis. Anuradha & Associates, Mis. AP & J
Chambers, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Com1 was delivered by
A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. I. Leave granted.
2. We have three sets of matters before us. The first is appeals E
arising from the common judgment of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad dated 7'h April, 2016 in Writ Petition Nos: 1380, 34118 and
35051 all of2015. The second is an appeal arising from the decision of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 271h
May, 2016 in Writ Petition No: 12004 of2016. Thethird is a Writ Petition F
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for a declaration
that the third Proviso to Regulation 9(2) of the Post Graduate Medical
Education Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said
Regulation'), is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution; and for a direction against the Authorities to refrain from
disturbing the selection of the said writ petitioners or to interfere with G
their Post Graduate studies which they are presently pursuing. The
latter two proceedings are the fall out of the interim order passed by this
Court dated I21h May, 20 t6.
3. The first set of appeals (arising from SLP (C) Nos: 13.832,
H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 6 S.C.R.

A 13872, 14427 and 15154-56 all of2016), are directed against the common
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 7'h April, 2016
disposing the aforesaid three Writ Petitions preferred by the in-service
Medical Officers in the State of Uttar Pradesh, challenging the
Government Orders dated 28'h February, 2014 and I 7'h April, 2014 - so
far as it imposed a condition of working of three years in rural or difficult
B
areas as ultra-vires and hit by Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. It was also prayed that No Objection Certificate be issued in
favourofthe petitioners for admission in MD/MS/Diploma in UPPGMEE-
2015 and for quashing of the declaration of result dated 2nd June, 2015.
4. The said writ petitioners claimed to be members of the Provincial
c Medical 1i.:alth Services in the State of Uttar Pradesh. According to
them, they were also entitled to be considered for admission in Post
Graduate Degree Courses against 30% quota for in-service candidates.
That plea was opposed on the ground that 30% quota was reserved only
for the in-service candidates who had worked in remote and difficult
D areas; and not for the in-service Medical Officers generally. In these
petitions, the High Court was primarily required to c'Onsider the question
as to whether the in-service Medical Officers in the State of Uttar
Pradesh who had working experience (in areas other than remote and
difficult areas), could also be treated as eligible for admission against the
reserved 30% quota for in-service candidates in Post Graduate Degree
E
Courses. While considering this issue, the High Court, in the context of
Regulation 9, noticed that there was no provision in The Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Enactment or
Act of 1956); and the Regulations framed thereunder knowi1 as Medical
Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000
F (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulations), stipulating reservation
for in-service candidates against the 30% seats in "Post Graduate Degree
Courses". The provision, however, was only to give weightage of marks
to in-service candidates who had worked for specified period in CHC
and PHC Hospitals in notified remote, difficult or backward areas of the
State. On the other hand, reservation has been limited to Post Graduate
G "Diploma" Courses by the said Regulations. The High Court, therefore,
called upon the Medical Council oflndia to clarify its stand in this behalf.
The Medical Council of India stated before the High Court that no
reservation for in-service candidates was permissible in respect of Post
Graduate "Degree" Courses; unlike for the Post Graduate "Diploma"
H
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN 583
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

Courses, in terms of Regulations framed in that behalf. Further, the A
State Government could not have framed any statutory Rules much less
provided different dispensation by an executive fiat. In light of this stand,
the High Court was pleased to hold that the State Government has had
no authority to frame any Rules or issue any executive order to provide
for reservation in the Post Graduate "Degree" Courses, contrary to the
B
statutory Regulations framed under the Medical Council of India Act,
1956 (Central Enactment). The High Court whilst adverting to the
decisions of this Court including the recent judgment in the case ofSudhir
N. mu/ others Versus State ofKenda and others' held that Regulation
9 is a complete Code and the admission process must strictly adhere to
the norms stipulated therein. It, thus, proceeded to quash the Government c
Notification-cum-Government Order dated 28 1h February, 2014 and
directed that admissions to Post Graduate "Degree" Courses be
proceeded strictly on merits amongst the candidates who have obtained
requisite minimum marks in the common entrance examination in question.
It also noted that as per Regulation 9, at best, the in-service candidates
D
who have worked in remote and difficult areas in the State, as notified
by the State Government/Competent Authority from time to time, alone
would be eligible for weightage of marks as incentive at the rate of 10%
of the marks obtained for each year of service in such areas upto the
maximum of30% marks obtained in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test. E
5. This common judgment of the High Court has been challenged
in appeals arising from SLP (Civil) Nos.13832, 14427, 13872, 15154-56/
2016. When these appeals came up for consideration on J2•h May,
2016, this Court recorded the statement made on behalf of the State
Government and proceeded to pass the following order: F
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has in terms of the
impugned judgment quashed Government Order dated 28th
February, 2014 whereby 30% seats in post-graduate degree
courses in medicine and other disciplines have been reserved for G
in-service candidates who had three years or more of rural service
in notified and difficult areas. The High Court has relying upon
the judgment of this Court in Sudhir N. and Others v. State of
Kerala and Others - (2015) 6 SCC 685 held that the State
1
(2015) 6 sec 685 H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A Government could not by an executive order change the method
of selection for admission of candidates for post-graduate courses
in medical science so as to violate or dilute the regulations framed
by the Medical Council of India in exercise of its powers under
Section 33 of Medical Council oflndia Act. Regulation 9 of the
Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education
B
Regulations, 2000 which deals with the method of selection of
candidates for admission to post-graduate courses reads as under:
"9. SELECTION OF POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS.
9(1 )(I) Students for Post Graduate medical courses 3 shall be
c selected strictly on the basis of their Inter-se Academic Merit. b)
50% of the seats in Post Graduate Diploma Course shall be
reserved for Medical Officers in the Government service, who
have served for at least three years in remote and difficult area.
After acquiring the PG Diploma, the Medical Officers shall serve
for two more years in remote and/or difficult areas. In Clause
D 9( I )(b) after the words" remote and/or difficult areas" and in the
proviso to the clause 9(2)(d), the following shall be inserted in
terms of Notification published on 16.04.20 I 0. "As directed by
the competent State authorities from time to time." .9 (2) For
determining the' Academic Merit' the University/Institution may
E adopt the following methodology: (a) On the basis of merit as
determined by a Competitive Test' conducted by the State
Government or by the competent authority appointed by the State
government or by the university/group ofuniversities in the same
state; or(b) On the basis of merit as determined by a centralised
. competitive test held at the national level; or (c) on the basis of
F the individual cumulative performance at the first, second and
third MBBS examinations provided admissions are University wise.
Or (d) combination of (a) and (c) Provided that wherever Entrance
Test for postgraduates admission is held by a state government or
a university or any other authorised examining body, the minimum
G percentage of marks for eligibility for admission to postgraduate
medical course shall be SO percent for general category candidates
and 40 percent for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes. Provided further
that in Non-Governmental institutions fifty percent of the iota!
seats shall 4 be filled by the Competent authority notified by the
H
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DJNESH SINGH CHAUHAN 585
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

State Government and the remaining fifty percent by the A
management(s) of the institution on the basis oflnter-se Academic
Merit. The following proviso is added after clause 9(2)( d) in terms"'
of Gazette Notification published on 17 .11.2009.
"Further provided that in detennining the merit and the entrance
test for postgraduate admission weightage in the marks may be
B
given as an incentive at the rate of I 0% of the marks obtained for
each year in-service in remote or difficult areas up to the mmdmum
of30% of the marks obtained." (Emphasis supplied by us)
It was contended on behalf of the petitioners-candidates by
Mrs. lndu Malhotra, learned senior counsel, that while the question
whether the Government could reserve seats for candidates who
c
had rendered service in notified rural and difficult areas, could be
examined in greater detail at the final hearing, the least that this
court could do at the interim stage is to direct redrawing of the
merit list of the candidates in terms of the Regulation 9 (supra). It
was submitted that proviso (iii) to Regulation 9(2) clearly permits D
grant of weightage in terms of marks by way of an incentive for
rural service rendered by candidates at the rate of I 0% for each
year of service in remote or difficult areas subject to a maximum
of 30% of the marks obtained by a candidate. It was contended
that even if the State was not competent to separately reserve a
specific number of seats for candidates who have served in notified
E
areas the fact that candidates had rendered service in notified
rural and difficult areas entitled them to weightage in terms of the
said proviso. It was urged that the State Government could be
directed to re-draw the merit list of the candidates who appeared
in the competitive examination on the basis of the above Regulation F
giving to the eligible candidates weightage for rural service, if any
rendered by them, and granting admission accordingly to those
who qualify on that basis. It was urged that while the State
Government had already completed one round of counselling for
some of the candidates in the merit list, the remaining candidates
had yet to be counselled. This may therefore call for cancellation G
of the earlier counselling and holding of a fresh round of counselling
of candidates after a revised merit list drawn in the manner
indicated above. Mr. o·inesh Owivedi, learned ;enior counsel
appearing for the respondents~writ petitioners and Mr. Dushyant
H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 6 S.C.R.

A Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the State, submit that
they will have no objection ifthe merit list is redrawn on the basis
of Regulation 9 (supra) after giving to eligible candidates the
weightage for service, if any rendered, in notified rural areas.
They have also no objection to the counselling process being done
de novo on the basis of the revised merit list so prepared.
B
In the circumstances, we direct that the State Government
shall as expeditiously as possible revise and redraw the merit list
of_!!.1e candidates keeping in view Regulation 9 of the Medical
Coun~il of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations,
2000 and giving to the eligible candidates such 6 weigtage as may
c 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 30th 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.
D
Post after ensuing summer vacation."
(emphasis supplied)
6. In furtherance of the above order, the Competent Authority has
prepared a fresh merit list ofall the candidates in terms of Regulation 9,
E giving weightage of marks to eligible in-service Medical Officers. As a
result, the previous merit list stood fully altered and realigned. The
admission process will have to be taken forward on the basis of this
fresh merit list. As a result of the preparation ofa fresh merit list, most
of the candidates who had earlier secured higher position in the common
entrance test examination, have been pushed back due to allocation of
F incentive marks to the concerned in-service Medical Officers. Hence,
those affected candidates made representations to the State of Uttar
Pradesh; which in turn was advised to file Interlocutory Application in
this Court being I.A.No.5/2016 in SLP (Civil) No.13832/2016, praying
for permitting the State Government to restore the position as it existed
G prior to the issuance of the Government Order dated 28 111 February, 2014,
so that, admission to Post Graduate Medical Seats can be made on the
basis of marks obtained by the concerned candidates in the NEET; and
further to extend the time for completing the admission process in the
Post Graduate Degree Courses. Besides the State Government, even
the candidates affected by the fresh merit list prepared in terms of
H
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN 587
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

Regulation 9, have rushed to this Court by way of separate Interlocutory A
Applications in the respective appeals. According to them, status quo-
ante should be restored to enable them to pursue their Post Graduate
"Degree" Courses. in the same colleges where they have already been
admitted.
7. The second set of appeal (arising from.SLP (Civil) No.15529/ B
2016), is by Medical Officers of State Medical Colleges seeking admission
to Post Graduate Degree Courses. According to them, they were also
eligible candidates in terms of Regulation 9 and should have been
considered at the time of preparing a fresh merit list. The said Writ
Petition was dismissed by the Division Bench vide Order dated 271h
May, 2016 on the finding that it was not feasible for the Department to
c
consider the claim of eligible in-service candidates who had not submitted
applications/documents before the notified date. In other words, only
those in-service candidates who had submitted applications for grant of
admission to the Post Graduate Degree Courses within the stipulated
time have been considered. This proceeding is, therefore, the fall out of D
the interim direction issued by this Court on l 2 1h May, 2016.
8. The third set of proceedings being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 72/
2016, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, is by students
aspiring to take admissions to various Post Graduate "Degree" Courses
in the State of Uttar Pradesh; and who claim to have been affected by E
the dispensation specified in the interim order passed by this Court dated
12 1h May, 2016. In that, they have been dislodged from the respective
Post Graduate Degree Courses in which they were already admitted in
the concerned medical colleges and even started pursuing their courses.
9. These matters were listed to consider the Interlocutory F
Applications filed by the State of U .P. and other affected candidates.
The sum and substance of the argument was that the challenge before
the High Court in the writ petition filed was at the instance of in-service
Medical Officers who had not worked or gained experience in remote
and difficuit areas in the State and wanted to be equated with their
counterparts who were or had worked in remote and/or difficult areas. G
The High Court, however, quashed the entire resolution providing for
30% reservation to in-service candidates. Further, by way of interim
directions this Court directed preparation of fresh merit list; and on
following that direction, several meritorious candidates have been
H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 6 S.C.R.

A dislodged and pushed back in order of merit because of the weightage
or incentive marks given to in-service candidates.
10. The learned Attorney General representing the State
Government, in all fairness, stated that he was not in a position to resile
from the statement already made on behalf of the State Government as
B recorded in the order on 12.05.2016, but wanted this Court to consider
the anomalous situation created because of the fresh merit list; and to
overcome that difficulty, it would be advisable to allow the State
Government to restore the position as it existed prior to the issuance of
the Government Order dated 28.02.2014 - so that admission to all Post
Graduate Degree Courses can be made on the basis of merit as per the
c marks obtained in the Common Entrance Examination. That would result
in upholding the impugned decision dated 07.04.2016. This argument
has been supported by one section of applicants in the accompanying
impleadment applications.
11. The leading arguments on behalf of the candidates affected by
D the fresh merit list were made by Shri Ashok Desai, Sr. Counsel, Shri
Yatinder Singh, Sr. Counsel, and Shri Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Counsel.
The contra argument was made by Shri K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Counsel,
Shri K.V. Vishwanath, Sr. Counsel, Shri Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Counsel
and Shri Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Counsel.
E 12. According to Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate appearing for
Medical Council of India, the dispensation provided in terms of order
dated 12.05.2016 is just and legal, for granting admissions to Post Graduate
"Degree" Courses in medical colleges. Hence, no fault can be found
with that approach. It was further contended that the provisions regarding
F giving weightage to the in-service candidates by way of incentive marks
has been introduced in larger public interest and the same is just, rational
and proper.
13. Shri Ranjit Kumar, Solicitor General appearing for King
George's Medical College supported the stand taken by the Attorney
G General. He submitted that reservation hitherto applied only to State
colleges, but now with the dispensation adopted in terms of order dated
12.05.2016 passed by this Court of giving weightage to all the eligible in-
service candidates, the benefit would apply even in respect of State
seats in non-Government colleges, including statutory Universities who
have to follow the merit list prepared as per the Common Entrance
H
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN 589
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

Examination. Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG appearing for the Union of India A
submitted that since advertisement was already issued, it would be
appropriate to continue the college admissions without reservation for
in-service candidates. ·1t was argued on behalf of the interventionists
that the decision to strictly follow Regulation 9 may be made applicable
only to academic year 2016-17 and not for an earlier period, in respect
B
ofwhic.h the admission process has already been completed and more
so because the students have taken admission on that basis and
commenced their academic year. It was further submitted that.a separate
list of in-service candidates can be maintained to the extent of 30%
seats. Preparation of combined merit list results in unequals being treated
equally; and, more so, leads to preposterous results. In some cases the c
in-service candidates, because of the weightage of marks, have secured
more than the maximum marks of200, specified in the CET. The counsel
appearing for the interventionists placed a comparative chart depicting
the irrational effect due to the fresh merit list. That shows the unfair
manner in which the meritorious candidates have been pushed down in
D
the merit list. It was further submitted that the direct candidates were
willing to give undertaking/bond to the effect that after passing out Post-
Graduate Degree Courses they would serve in remote cfr difficult areas
in the State for a period as may be specified. This would assuage the
impression being created that those candidates were un-willing to work .
in remote and difficult areas. It was also contended that even tho1.1gh E
some of the candidates who were keen to work in remote and/or difficult
areas, in absence of any notification issued by the State Government to
invite applications for quite some time for appointment as Medical Officers
in remote and difficult areas, the interventionists - the aspiring eligible
candidates - were denied opportunity to work as Medical Officers in
the State hospitals. Further, the reservation of30% seats was limited to
F
Government Colleges but the fresh common merit list was applied to all
the colleges and Universities including non-Gover:nment medical colleges
in the State.
14. As the arguments were heard at length, it was made clear to
all concerned that instead of deciding the applications taken out in the G
respective substantive proceedings, the entire matter will be disposed
off as the issues to be answered in the main proceedings would be the
same.
15. Having considered the rival submissions, the first question that
H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 6 S.C.R.

A needs to be answered is: whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction
in setting aside the Government Order dated 28.02.2014 providing for
reservation to in-service candidates, when the writ petition filed by the
in-service candidates was limited to equate them with the in-service
candidates who had the experience of working in remote or difficult
areas. Indeed, the challenge. before the High Court was limited.
8
However, the High Cou11 having held that the State Government could
not have issued such order in violation of Regulation 9, quashed the
same. The High Court had invited the parties to advance arguments on
the validity of the said Government Order before passing the final order.
The High Court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court and opined
c that it was not permissible, in law, for the State Government to provide
reservation for in-service candidates in Post-Graduate "Degree" courses
in violation of Regulation 9. Concededly, action taken on the basis of
such a void Government Order would be nothing short ofa nullity in law.
As a result, the High Court proceeded to issue directions to follow the
admission process for Post Graduate "Degree" Courses strictly in
D
conformity with Regulation 9. The High Court thus moulded the relief
on the basis of the settled legal position. That approach is un-
exceptionable, except that it may be necessary to mould the relief further
as would be indicated hereinafter.
16. Be that as it may, after the interim order dated 12.05.2016 was
E passed by this Court on the basis of assurance given by the State, it is
not open for the State Government to contend to the contrary. Notably,
the State Government has not prayed for relieving itself from the statement
as has been recorded in the order dated 12.05.2016. That interim order,
therefore, in one sense was invited by the State Government to strictly
F follow Regulation 9 by giving a weighlage of marks to eligible in-service
candidates and redraw the merit list. The concomitant of such an
informed statement made to this Court, inevitably, results in withdrawal
of the Government order dated 28.02.2014 (which in fact has been justly
quashed by the High Court); and also to notify that the admissions to
Post Graduate Degree Courses in the State ofU.P. will be in conformity
G with Regulation 9, including to give only weightage or incenti_ve marks to
eligible in-service candidates who have served in notified remote/difficult
areas of the State. In any case, it is not open to the State Government to
provide for a dispensation different than the one specified by the Central
Act and Regulations made thereunder.
H
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN 591
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, l]

17. A priori, it must be held that the reliefclaimed in the application A
filed by the State Government is an ingenious way to overcome the
unconditional and unequivocal statement made before this Court on
12.05.2016. We are of the considered opinion that the State Government
is obliged to adopt a procedure as is stipulated by the Central Act and
Regulations framed thereunder and noted in the interim order dated
B
12.05.2016. Regulation 9 has been extracted in the said order dated
12.05.2016, as reproduced above. Regulation 9(2) specifically deals
with the process of "determining the academic merit" of the eligible
candidates. Indeed, the primary consideration for determining the
academic merit of the candidates is the marks obtained by the respective
candidates in the common competitive test or centralized competitive c
test held by the concerned Authority. What is relevant for our purpose
is the third proviso in Regulation 9(2). It envisages that in determining
the merit, weightage may be given at the rate of 10% of the marks
obtained for each year in-service in remote or difficult areas upto the
maximum of 30% marks obtained in the common examination by the
D
candidates. This Regulation does not envisage reservation of seats for
the Post Graduate "Degree" Courses, unlike the express provision which
is made in the same Regulation to provide reservation of seats for in-
service candidates in "Diploma" courses.
18. Reverting to Regulation 9 of the Post Graduate Medical
Education Regulations, 2000, which have been framed by the Medical E
Council oflndia in exercise of power conferred by Section 33 read with
Section 20 of the Indian Medical Council oflndiaAct, 1956, it is noticed
that the same has undergone amendment from time to time. The
decisions pressed into service have considered the stipulations as
applicable at the relevant time. The recent decision in the case of Sudhir F
N. (supra) also dealt with Regulation applicable to admission process
commenced in the year 2009-20 I 0. We are, however, concerned with
the admission process for the subsequent academic years and covered
by the Regulations as in force. Regulation 9, as amended and lastly
notified and made applicable from the Academic Year 2013-14 vide
·Notification No.MCI-18(1 )/20 I O-Mad/62052 dated I 5m,rebruary 2012, G
reads thus:
"9. Procedure for selection of candidate for Postgraduate
courses shall be as follows:

H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016) 6 S.C.R.

, A I. There shall be a single eligibility cum entrance examination
namely 'National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for
admission to Postgraduate Medical Courses' in each
academic year. The superintendence, direction and control
. of National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test shall vest with
National Board of Examinations under overall supervision
B
of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government
oflndia"]
II. . 3% seats of the annual sanctioned intake capacity shall be
filled up by candidates with locomotory disability oflower
c limbs between 50% to 70%:
Provided that in case any seat in this 3% quota remains
unfilled on account of unavailability of candidates with
locomotory disability oflower limbs between 50% to 70%
then any such unfilled seat in this 3% quota shall be filled
D up by persons with locomotory disability of lower limbs
between 40% to 50% - before they are included in the
annual sanctioned seats for General Category candidates.
Provide further that this entire exercise shall be completed
by each medical college/institution as per the statutory time
schedule for admissions.
E
III. In order to be eligible for admission to any postgraduate
course in a particular academic year, it shall be necessary
for a candidate to obtain minimum of marks at SO•h percentile
in 'National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate
courses' held for the said academic year. However, in
F
respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, the minimum
marks shall be at 40•h percentile. In respect of candidates
as provided in clause 9(11) above with locomotory disability
oflower limbs, the minimum marks shall be at 4S•h percentile.
G The percentile shall be determined on the basis of highest
marks secured intheAll-Indiacommon merit list in 'National
Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test' for Postgraduate courses:
[Provided when sufficient number of candidates in the
respective categories fail to secure minimum marks as
H
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN 593
(A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

prescribed in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test held A
for any academic year for admission to Post Graduate
Courses, the Central Government in consultation with
Medical Council of India may at its discretion lower the
minimum marks required for admission to Post Graduate
Course for candidates belonging to respective categories
B
and marks so lowered by the Central Government shall be
applicable for the said academic'year only.
IV. The reservation of seats in medical colleges/institutions for
respective categories shall be as per applicable laws
prevailing in States/Union Territories. An all India merit list
as well as State-wise merit list of the eligible candidate c
shall be 11re11ared on the basis of the marks obtained in
National Eligibilit)'.-cum-Entrance Test and candidates shall
be admitted to Post-graduate courses from the said merit
lists only:
[Provided that in determining the merit of candidates who D
are in-service of Government/Qublic authority, weightage
in the marks max be given bx the Government/Com11etent
Authorit)'. as an incentive at the rate of I 0% Qf the marks
obtained for each xear of service in remote and/or difficult
areas UQtO the maximum of30% of the marks obtained in
E
National Eligibilit)'.-cum Entrance Test, the remote and
difficult areas shall be as defined bx State Government/
ComQetent authorit)'. from time to time.
v. No candidate who has failed to obtained the minimum
eligibility marks as prescribed in sub-clause (II) shall be
F
admitted to any Postgraduate courses in the said academic
year.
VI. In non-Governmental medical colleges/institutions, 50%
(Fifty Per cent) of the total seats shall be filled by State
Government or the Authority appointed by them, and the
G
remaining 50% (Fifty Per Cent) of the seats shall be filled
by the concerned medical colleges/institutions on the basis
of the merit list prepared as per the marks obtained in
National Eligibility-cum/Entrance Test.)
VII. 50% of the seats _in Post Graduate DiQloma Courses sha.11
H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A be reserved for Medical Officers in the Government service,
who have served for at least three years in remote and/or
difficult areas. After acquiring the PG Diploma, the Medical
Officers shall serve for two more years in remote and/or
difficult areas as defined by State Government/Competent
authority from time to time.]
B
VIII. The Universities and other authorities concerned shall
organize admission process in such a way that teaching in
postgraduate courses starts by 2°d May and by I" August
for super specialty courses each year. For this purpose,
they shall follow the time schedule indicated in Appendix-
c 111.]
IX. There shall be no admission of students in respect of any
academic session beyond 31" May for postgraduate courses
and 30'h September for super speciality courses under any
circumstances. The Universities shall not register any
D student admitted beyond the said date.]
X. The Medical Council of India may direct, that any student
identified as having obtained admission after the last date
for closure of admission be discharged from the course of
study, or any medical qualification granted to such a student
E shall not be a recognized qualification for the purpose of
the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The institution which
grants admission to any student after the last date specified
for the same shall also be Iiable to face such action as may
be prescribed by MCI including surrender of seats equivalent
F to the extent of such admission made from its sanctioned
intake capacity for the succeeding academic year.]"
(emphasis supplied)
19. The structure of the provision, as in force, may be somewhat
different. Nevertheless, the legal principle stated in the earlier decisions
G of this Court on the question ofjustness ofreservation and/or to provide
separate channel for the in-service Medical Officers and/or grant
weightage of incentive marks to candidates having served in remote and
difficult areas may be of some relevance.
20. By now, it is well established that Regulation 9 is a self-contained
Code regarding the procedure to be followed for admissions to medical
H
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN 595
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

courses. It is also well established that the State has no authority to A
enact any law muchless by executive instructions that may undermine
the procedure for admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses
enunciated by the Central Legislation and Regulations framed thereunder,
being a subject falling within the Entry 66 of List I to the Seventh Schedule
of the Constitution (See: Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) V. State of M.P.2).
B
The procedure for selection of candidates for the Post Graduate Degree
Courses is one such area on which the Central Legislation and
Regulations must prevail.
21. Thus, we must first ascertain whether Regulation 9, as applicable
to the case on hand, envisages reservation of seats for in-service Medical
Officers generally for admission to Post Graduate "Degree" Courses. c
Regulation 9 is a composite provision prescribing procedure for selection
of candidates - both for Post Graduate "Degree" as well as Post Graduate
"Diploma" Courses. Clause (I) of Regulation 9 mandates that there shal I
be a single National Eligibility-cum- Entrance Test (hereinafter referred
to as NEET) to be conducted by the designated Authority. Clause (II) D
provides for three per cent seats of the annual sanctioned intake capacity
to be earmarked for candidates with locomotory disability of lower limbs.
We are not concerned with this provision. Clause (Ill) provides for
eligibility for admission to any Post Graduate Course in a particular
academic year. Clause (IV) is the relevant provision. It provides for
reservation of seats in medical colleges/institutions for reserved categories E
as per applicable laws prevailing in States/Union Territories. The
reservation referred to in the opening part of this clause is, obviously,
with reference to reservation as per the constitutional scheme (for
Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe'or Other Backward Class Candidates);
and not for the in-service candidates or Medical Officers in service. It F
further stipulates that All India merit list as well as State wise merit list
of the eligible candidates shall be prepared on the basis of the marks
obtained in the NEET and the admission to Post Graduate Courses in
the concerned State shall be as per the merit list only. Thus, it is a
provision mandating admission of candidates strictly as per the merit list
of eligible candidates for the respective medical courses in the State. G
This provision, however, contains a proviso. It predicates that in
determining the merit of candidates who are in-service of Government
or a public Authority, weightage in the marks may be given by the

'(1999)7 sec 120
H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 6 S.C.R.

A Government/Competent Authority as an incentive at the rate of 10% of
the marks obtained for each year of service in specified remote or difficult
areas of the State upto the maximum of30% of the marks obtained in
NEET. This provision even if read liberally does not provide for
reservation for in-service candidates, but only of giving a weightage in
the form of incentive marks as specified to the class of in- service·
B
candidates (who have served in notified remote and difficult areas in the
State).
22. From the plain language of this proviso, it is amply clear that it
does not envisage reservation for in-service candidates in respect of
Post Graduate "Degree" Courses with which we are presently concerned.
c This proviso postulates giving weightage of marks to "specified in-service
candidates" who have worked in notified remote and/or difficult areas
in the State - both for Post Graduate "Degree" Courses as also for Post
Graduate "Diploma" Courses. Further, the weightage of marks so allotted
is required to be reckoned while preparing the merit list of candidates.
D 23. Thus understood, the Central Enactment and the Regulations
framed the~eunder do not' provide for reservation for in-service candidates
in Post Graduate "Degree" ~ourses. As there is no express provision
prohibiting reservation to in-service candidates in respect of admission
to Post Graduate "Degree" Courses, it was contended that providing for
E such reservation by the State Government is not impermissible in law.
Further, there are precedents of this Court to suggest that such
arrangement is permissible as a separate channel of admission for in-
service candidates. This argument does not commend to us. In the first
place, the decisions pressed into service have considered the provisions
regarding admission process governed by the Regulations in force at the
F relevant time. The admission process in the present case is governed by
the Regulations which have come into force from Academic Year2013-
14. This Regulation is a self-contained Code. There is nothing in this
Regulation to even remotely indicate that a separate channel for admission
to in-service candidates must be provided, at least in respect of Post
G Graduate "Degree" Courses. In contradistinction, however, 50% seats
are earmarked for the Post Graduate "Diploma" Courses for in-service
candidates, as is discernible from Clause (VII). Ifthe Regulation intended
a similar separate channel for in-service candidates even in respect of
Post Graduate "Degree" Courses, that position would have been made
clear in Regulation 9 itself. In absence thereof, it must be presumed that
H
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN 597
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

a separate channel for in-service candidates is not permissible for A
admission to Post Graduate "Degree" Courses. Thus, the State
Government, in law, had no authority to issue a Government Order such
as dated 28'h February 2014, to provide to the contrary. Hence, the
High Court was fully justified in setting aside the said Government Order
being contrary to the mandate of Regulation 9 of the Regulations of
B
2000, as applicable from Academic Year 2013-14.
24. In the case of A/IMS Students Union vs. AIIMS & Ors.J,
this Court was called upon to examine the question whether seats
earmarked for institutional candidates do or do not resu It in reservation
in the sense in which it is understood in the Constitution. After examining
earlier decisions on the point, this Court in paragraph 59, noticed the c
distinction between undergraduate level education which is a primary or
basic level of education in medical sciences. The Court held that
institutional reservation is not supported by the Constitution or
constitutional principles. However, a certain degree of preference for
students of the same institution is pen11issible without making an excessive D
or substantial departure from the rule of merit and equality. Further, it
has to be kept within the limits, minimum standards and merit cannot be
diluted as to become practically non-existent. In the present case, we
have held that providing 30% reservation to in-service candidates in
Post Graduate "Degree" Courses is not permissible. It does not however,
follow that giving weightage or incentive marks to in-service candidates E
for Post Graduate "Degree" Courses entails in excessive or substantial
departure from the rule of merit and equality. For, Regulation 9 recognizes
the principle of givingweightage to in-service candidates while detennining
their merit. In that sense, incentive marks given to in-service candidates
is in recognition of their service reckoned in remote and difficult areas F
of the State, which marks are to be added to the marks obtained by them
in the NEET. Weightage or incentive marks specified in Regulation 9
are thus linked to the marks obtained by the in-service candidate in the
NEET and reckon the commensurate experience and services rendered
by them in notified remote/difficult areas of the State. That is a legitimate
and rational basis to encourage the Medical Graduates/Doctors to offer G
their services and expertise in remote or difficult areas of the State for
some time. Indisputably, there is a wide gap between the demand for
basic health care and commensurate medical facilities, because of the

'2002 o) sec 428
H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A inertia amongst the young doctors to go to such areas. Thus, giving
specified incentive marks (to eligible in-service candidates) is permissible
differentiation whi 1st determining their merit. It is an objective method of
determining their merit.
25. Coming to the next decision pressed into service in the case of
B State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Gop(i/ D. Tirtlumi & Ors.', it was a case of
conducting separate entrance test for in-service candidates. That was
frowned upon by this Court. The Court, however, suggested modality of
preparing two separate merit list for the two categories and merit inter
se of the successful candidates to be assessed separately in the two
respective categories. The Court had examined the question as to whether
c weightage can l?e given to doctors for having rendered specified number
of years of service in rural/tribal areas to determine the inter se merit.
The Court analyzed four earlier decisions of this Court; to wit, Di11esfl
Kumar (Dr.) (II) Vs. Motilaf Nelrru Medical College-', S11ehehtta
Pat11aik (Dr.) Versm· State of Orissa•, Naraya11 Slutrnut (Dr.) Versus
D Pankaj Sharma Kr. Lenkar7 and State of U.P. Versus Pradip Ta11do11•.
The Court in paragraph 33 observed thus:
" .......... The case at hand presents an entirely different
scenario. Firstly, it is a case of post-graduation within the State
and not an all-India quota. Secondly, it is not a case ofreservation,
E but one of only assigning weightage for service rendered in rural/
tribal areas. Thirdly, on the view of the law we have taken
hereinabove, the assigning ofweightage for service rendered in
rural/tribal areas does not at all affect in any manner the candidates
in open category. The weightage would have the effect of altering
the order of merit only as amongst the candidates entering through
F the exclusive channel of admissions meant for in-service candidates
within the overall service quota. The statistics set out in the earlier
part of the judgment provide ample justification for such weightage
being assigned. We find merit and much substance in the
submission of the learned Advocate-General for the State of
G Madhya Pradesh that Assistant Surgeons (i.e. medical graduates
entering the State services) are not temperamentally inclined to
' 2003 (7) sec 83
' (1986) 3sec121
,, <1992) 2 sec 267
' (2000J 1 sec 44
H 8
( 1975) I SCR 267
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN 599
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

go to and live in villages so as to make available their services to A
the rural population: they have a temptation for staying in cities on
account of better conditions, better facilities and better quality of
life available not only to them but also to their family members as
also better educational facilities in elite schools which are to be
found only in cities. In-service doctors being told in advance and
B
knowing that by rendering service in rural/tribal areas they can
capture better prospects of earning higher professional
qualifications, and consequently eligibility for promotion, acts as a
motivating factor and provides incentive to young in-service doctors
to opt for service in rural/tribal areas. In the set-up of health services
in the State of Madhya Pradesh and the geographical distribution c
of population, no fault can be found with the principle of assigning
weightage to be service rendered in rural/tribal areas while
finalizing the merit list of successful in-service candidates for
admission to PG courses of studies. Had it been a reservation
considerations would have differed. There is no specific challenge
D
to the quantum of weightage and in the absence of any material
being available on record we cannot find fault with the rule of
weightagc as framed. We hasten to add that while recasting and
reframing the rules, the State Government shall take care to see
that the weightage assigned is reasonable and is worked out on a
rational basis." (emphasis supplied) E
26. However, in the present case, the Medical Council of India
itself has framed a Regulation predicating one merit list by adding the
weightage of marks assigned to in-service candidates for determining
their merit in the NEET.
27. The imperative of giving some incentive marks to doctors F
working in the State and more particularly serving in notified remote or
difficult areas over a period of time need not be underscored. For, the
concentration of doctors is in urban areas and the rural areas are
neglected. Large number of posts in Public Health Care Units in the
State are lying vacant and unfilled in spite of sincere effort of the State G
Government. This problem is faced by all States across India. This Court
in Dr.Snellelata's case (supra) had left it to the Authorities to evolve
norms regarding giving incentive marks to the in-service candidates.
The Medical Council of India is an expert body. Its assessment about
the method of determining merit of the competing candidates must be
H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 6 S.C.R.

A accepted as final (Stllte of Kera/fl V. T.P.Roslutnll 9; lllso see MCI V.
Stllte OfKflr11t11llkll 111). After due deliberations and keeping in mind the
past experience, Medical Council oflndia has framed Regulations inter
alia providing for giving incentive marks to in-service candidates who
have worked in notified remote and difficult areas in the State to determine
their merit. The Regulation, as has been brought into force, after
B
successive amendments, is an attempt to undo the mischief.
28. As aforesaid, the real effect of Regulation 9 is to assign specified
marks commensurate with the length of service rendered by the candidate
in notified remote and difficult areas i.n the State linked to the marks
obtained in NEET. That is a procedure prescribed in the Regulation for
c determining merit of the candidates for admission to the Post Graduate
"Degree" Courses for a single State. This serves a dual, purpose. Firstly,
the fresh qualified Doctors will be attracted to opt for rural service, as
later they would stand a good chance to get admission to Post Graduate
"Degree" Courses of their choice. Secondly, the Rural Health Care Units
D run by the Public Authority would be benefitted by Doctors willing to
work in notified rural or difficult areas in the State. In our view, a
Regulation such as this subserves larger public interest. Our view is
reinforced from the dictum in Dr. Sneliel<lfll P{lfnllik's case (supra).
The three Judges' Bench by a speaking order opined that giving incentive
marks to in-service candidates is inexorable. It is apposite to refer to the
E dictum in the said decision which reads thus:
"We have already dismissed the writ petition and special leave
petitions by our order dated· December 5, 1991. We would
however, like to make a suggestion to the authorities for their
consideration that some preference might be given to in-service
F candidates who have done five years of rural service. In the first
place, it is possible that the facilities for keeping up with the latest
medical literature might not be available to such in-service
candidates and the nature of their work makes it difficult for them
to acquire knowledge about very recent medical research which
G the candidates who have come after freshly passing their graduation
examination might have. Moreover, it might act as an incentive to
doctors who had done their graduation to do rural service for
some time. Keeping in mind the fact that the rural areas had
9
(1979)1 sec 572(para 16)
H '" (1998) 6 sec 131
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN 601
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

suffered grievously fornon-availability of qualified doctors giving A
such incentive would be quite in order. Learned counsel for the
respondents has, however, drawn our attention to the decision of
a Division Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in D1: Dinesh
Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College. Allahabad. It has
been observed there that merely by offering a weightage of 15
B
per cent to a doctor for three years' rural service would not bring
about a migration of doctors from the urban to rural areas. They
observed that if you want to produce doctors who are MD or MS,
particularly surgeons, who are going to operate upon human beings,
it is of utmost importance that the selection should be based on
merit. Learned Judges have gone on to observe that no weightage c
should be given to a candidate for rural service rendered by him
so far as admissions to post-graduate courses are concerned (see
para 12 at page 741 ).
In our opinion, this observation certainly does not constitute
the ratio of the decision. The decision is in no way dependent D
upon these observations. Moreover, those observations are in
connection with all India Selection and do not have equal force
when applied to selection from a single State. These observations.
however. suggest that the weightage to be given must be the bare
minimum required to meet the situation. In these circumstances,
we are of the view that the authorities might well consider giving E
weightage up to a maximum of 5 per cent of marks in favour of
in-service candidates who have done rural service for five years
or more. The actual percentage would certainly have to be left to
the authorities. We also clarify that these suggestions do not in
any way confer any legal right on in-service students who have F
done rural service nor do the suggestions have any application to
the selection of the students up to the end of this year."
(emphasis supplied)
29. The crucial question to be examined in this case is: whether
the norm specified in Regulation 9 regarding incentive marks can be G
termed as excessive and unreasonable? Regulation 9, as applicable, does
not permit preparation of two merit lists, as predicated in the case of
Tirthani (supra). Regulation 9 is a complete Code. It prescribes the
basis for determining the eligibilities of the candidates including the method
to be adopted for detennining the inter se merit, on the basis of one merit
H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A list of candidates appearing in the same NEET including by giving
commensurate weightage of marks to the in-service candidates.
30. As aforesaid, Regulations have been framed by an Expert
Body based on past experience and including the necessity to reckon
the services and experience gained by the in-service candidates in notified
B remote and difficult areas in the State. The proviso prescribes the measure
for giving incentive marks to in-service candidates who have worked in
notified remote and difficult areas in the State. That can be termed as a
qualitative factor for determining their merit. Even the quantitative factor
to reckon merit of the eligible in-service candidates is spelt out in the
proviso. It envisages giving of incentive marks at the rate of I 0% of the
c marks obtained for each year of service in remote and/or difficult areas
up to 30% of the marks obtained in NEET. It is an objective method of
linking the incentive marks to the marks obtained in NEET by the
candidate. To illustrate, if an in-service candidate who has worked in a
notified remote and/or difficult area in the State for at least one year and
D has obtained 150 marks out of200 marks in NEET, he or she would get
15 additional marks; and if the candidate has worked for two years, the
candidate would get another 15 marks. Similarly if the candidate has
worked for three years and more, the candidate would get a further 15
marks in addition to the marks secured in N EET. 15 marks out of 200
marks in that sense would work out to a weightage of 7 .5% only, for
E
having served in notified remote and/or difficult areas in the State for
one year. Had it been a case of giving I 0% marks en bloc of the total
marks irrespective of the marks obtained by the eligible in-service
. candidates in NEET, it would have been a different matter. Accordingly,
some weightage marks given to eligible in-service candidate linked to
F performance in NEET and also the length of service in remote and/or
difficult areas in the State by no standard can be said to be excessive,
unreasonable or irrational. This provision has been brought into force in
larger public interest and not merely to provide institutional preference
or for that matter to create separate channel for the in-service candidate,
much less reservation. It is unfathomable as to how such a provision can
G be said to be unreasonable or irrational.
31 . Here, it may be necessary to deal with the decision of a two
Judges' Bench of this Court in S"'Y"b"'t" S"/100 mu/ others (supra).
The Court was called upon to consider the validity of Clause 11.2 of the
"Prospectus" for selection of candidates for Post Graduate (Medical)
H
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN 603
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

Courses in the Government Medical Colleges ofOdisha for the Academic A
Year 2012. The challenge to the said clause in the prospectus was by
direct candidates, inter-alia, on the ground that it makes in road into the
prospects of direct candidates category. It was contended that giving
weightage of marks to in-service candidates would be diluting merit to
the extent of additional marks. A total of 173 seats available for the
B
category MD/MS course was split into 87 seats for in-service category
and 86 seats to direct category. The argument was that if all the
candidates - be it direct or in-service candidates- were required to appear
in a common entrance test examination and the admission criteria is only
comparative merit, the arrangement specified in the prospectus was
impermissible. The Court considered Clause 11.2 of the prospectus issued c
by the PG(Medical) Selection Committee, 2012 and took the view that
giving incentive marks to in-service candidates results in encroachment
or an in road or appropriation of seats earmarked for open market
candidates (direct admission category) who compete strictly on the basis
of merit. The Court held that the arrangement provided in Clause 11.2 of
D
the Prospectus was violative of the merit criteria specified in Clause 9
(l)(a) of the MCI Regulation. It held that seats for direct category or
open category is a homogeneous class which consists of all categories
of candidates who are fresh from college, who have rendered service
after MBBS in Government or private hospitals in remote or difficult
areas like hilly, tribal and rural areas and so on. All of them have to E
compete on merit in the direct candidate category, subject to rules of
reservation and eligibility. The Court further noticed that except the
State ofOdisha and to some extent the State of Tamil Nadu none of the
other States in India have incorporated such a clause in their prospectus
for the Post Graduate Medical Courses. The Court also quashed the
F
proviso to Clause 9(2)(d) of the MCI Regulations as applicable in that
case, to the extent indicated above. From the issues formulated in
paragraph 15 of this reported decision, it is evident that the challenge of
direct candidates was about allowing in-service candidates to compete
for seats earmarked for direct category by giving weightage of marks.
In the present case, however, there is no separate channel for two G
categories in respect of Post Graduate "Degree" Courses, as was the
dispensation in that case. On the other hand, only one merit list is prepared
and all available scats in terms of Regulation 9 are thrown open to both
categories ol candidates. The proviso to Clause IV of Regulation 9 in
force (corresponding to third proviso to Regulation 9(2) as extracted in
H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016) 6 S.C.R.

A the interim order dated 12.05.2016), as interpreted by us, is in the nature
of giving additional marks as incentive to in-service candidates,
commensurate with length of service in notified remote/difficult areas in
the State and also dependent on marks obtained by them in NEET. In
our opinion, neither the decision in Tirtltani nor the case of Satyabrata
Salwo will have any application to the admissions to Post Graduate
B
Degree Courses in the present case, to be taken forward on the basis of
Regulation 9, as in force.
32. Reverting to the recent decision of this Court in Sudllir N.
and Ors. (supra), the two Judges' Bench was dealing with the question
of selection of in-service medical officers for post-graduate medical
c education under Section 5(4) of the Kerala Medical Officers Admission
to Post-graduate Courses under the Service Quota Act, 2008. The said
provision has been extracted in paragraph 5 of the reported decision. It
deals with the finalization of select list by the Post-graduate Course
Select Committee strictly on the basis of seniority in-service of the
D Medical Officers and following such other criteria as may be prescribed.
Dealing with that challenge the court noticed that Regulation 9 is a
complete Code by itself and then proceeded to answer the question
whether the State was competent to enact law on the matterof admission
on the basis of inter-se seniority of candidates. In that context the Court
noted that the basis of selection must be strictly as per norms specified
E
in the MCI Regulations. Any law with regard to that will be beyond
legislative competence of the State legislature. The Court noted that
weightage for in-service candidates is made permissible by Regulation
9. That is the limited departure from the merit list criteria permitted by
the Regulation itself. Neither in the case of Sud/1ir N. (supra) nor in the
F case of Tirt/1ani (supra) the Court had the occasion to deal with the
question regarding challenge to the proviso to Clause IV of Regulation
9.
33. The matter does not end here. In the present proceedings,
however, large number of candidates who earlier found place in the
G merit list have been affected by the fresh merit Iist prepared in terms of
Order of this Court dated 12.05.2016. As a result of giving effect to
Regulation 9, the fresh list has thrown up a different argument for
consideration. The in-service candidates who had secured relatively
less marks in NEET have been placed high up in the order of merit
consequent to addition ofincentive marks@ I 0% of the marks for each
H
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN 605
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

year of service in the remote and/or difficult areas upto the maximum of A
30% of marks obtained in NEET (CET). We find merit in the submission
of Mr. Dwivedi, learned senior counsel, that the rights of such candidates
to be considered for admission, is not affected. What is affected is the
opportunity to get admission in a college or subject of their choice. There
can, however, be no right to get the subject or college of one's choice.
B
The provision in the shape of Regulation 9 is to determine the merit of
the competing candidates. Provision for giving incentive marks to in-
service candidates is permissible in law; and thus the proviso to Clause
IV in Regulation 9 must be upheld in larger public interest. That provision
has been introduced, inter-alia, also to ad.dress the deficiency and lack
of response of graduate doctors to serve in remote or difficult areas in c
the State. The scarcity of doctors in villages has been felt for quite
some time for which the provision in the form of proviso to Clause IV of
Regulation 9 was necessitated. This concern was even echoed in the
Rajya Sabha. Following questions were raised which were duly answered
by the Minister for Health and Family Welfare on 23.12.2014. The
D
same read thus :-
"Questions
"
(a) The measures being taken by Government to make up for
the extreme shortage of qualified and skilled doctors for E
healthcare in rural areas:
(b) Whether government is planning to introduce measures to
measures to introduce and enforce compulsorv rural postings
for doctors, before or after they have obtained an MBBS
. degree; F
(c) If so, the details thereof; and
(d) If not the reasons therefor?
Answers
G

(a) At present, in order to encourage the doctors working in
remote and difficult areas. the Medical Council of India
with the_ previous approval of Central Government, has
amended the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations.
H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 6 S.C.R.

A 2000 to provide :-
1. 50% reservation in Post Graduate diploma Courses for
Medical Officers in the Government service, who have
served for at least three years in remote and difficult areas;
and
B JI. Incentive at the rate of 10% the marks obtained for each
year in-service in remote or difficult area upto the maximum
of 30% of the. marks obtained in the entrance test for
admission in Post Graduate Medical Courses.
(emphasis supplied)
c (b}{d): The proposal of Medical Council of India CMCI) to
amend the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, which
makes one year rural posting at the Public Health Centre CPHC)
mandatory for a MBBS student to apply for admission in a PG
course is not yet notified." (emphasis supplied)
D · 34. It was then contended that hitherto reservation for in-service
candidates was applicable only in respect of Government colleges but
on account ofinterim directions given by this Court, dispensation of giving
· . weightage or incentive marks as per Regulation 9 to the in-service
·. ·candidates has been made applicable across the board even to non-
E • Government medical colleges where the seats allocated to the State
Government are to be filled up. In out opinion, Reguliition 9 per se makes
no di$tit)ction between G~vernment and non-Oovemment colleges for
allocation of*eightage of marks to in"service candidates. Instead, it
rillilidates preparation of one merit list for the State on the basis of results
in N EET. Further, regarding in-service candidates, all it provides is that
F the candidate must have been in-service of a Government/public Authority
and served. in remote and difficult areas notified by the State Government
and the Competent Authority from time to time. The Authorities are,
therefore, obliged to continue with the admission process strictly in
confonnity with Regulation 9. The fact that most of the direct candidates
G who have secured higher marks in the NEET than the in-service
candidates, may not be in a position to get a subject or college of their
choice, and are likely to secure a subject or college not acceptable to
them, cannot be the basis to question the validity of proviso to Clause IV
of Regulation 9. The purpose behind proviso is to encourage graduates
to join as medical officers and serve in notified remote and difficult areas
H
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN 607
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

of the State. The fact that for quite some time no such appointments A
have been made by the State Government also cannot be a basis to
disregard the mandate of proviso to Clause IV - of giving weightage of
marks to the in-service candidates who have served for a specified period
in notified remote and difficult areas of the State.
35. Presumably, realizing this position writ petition has been filed B
to challenge the validity of proviso to Clause IV of Regulation 9.
According to the writ petitioners, the prospectus provided for 30%
reservation in favour of in-service candidates for admission to post-
graduate medical courses. The application of Regulation 9 results in an
absurd situation because of giving weightage to specified in-serv.ice
Medical Officers in the State. There is neither any committee set up c
nor guidelines made as to which area can be notified as temote and
difficult area. The power vested in the State is an un-canalized power
and disregards the settled position that for consideration after the graduate
level, merit should be the sole criteria. Further, there is no nexus with
the object sought to be achieved for providing weightage to the extent of D
I 0% of the marks obtained by the candidate in the common competitive
test and to the extent of maximum of30% marks so obtained. Dealing
with this contention, we find that the setting in which the proviso to •
Clause IV has been inserted is of some relevance. The State
Governments across the country are not in a position to provide health
care facilities in remote and difficult areas in the State for want of E
Doctors.1 1 In fact there is a proposal to make one year service for
MBBS students to apply for admission to Post Graduate Courses, in
remote and difficult areas as compulsory. That is kept on hold, as was
stated before the Rajya Sabha. The provision in the form of granting
F
"Rural Health Statistics for 201-1-15 published by the Government ofIndia, Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare depicting the shortage ofdoctors in rural areas particularly
State of Vilar Pradesh, which reads thus:
Qualification Required Sanctioned In position Vacant Shortfall
MBBS 3497 4509 2209 2300 1288
Doctors at G
Primary Health
Centres("PHC's")
Specialists 3092 2099 484 1615 2608
At Community
Health Centres
("CHC's")
H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A weightage of marks, therefore, was to give incentive to the in-service
candidates and to attract more graduates to join as Medical Officers in
the State Health Care Sector. The provision was first inserted in 2012.
To determine the academic merit of candidates, merely securing high
marks in the NEET is not enough. The academic merit of the candidate
must also reckon the services rendered for.the common or public good.
B
Having served in rural and difficult areas of the State for one year or
above, the incumbent having sacrificed his career by rendering services
for providing health care facilities in rural areas, deserve incentive marks
to be reckoned for determining merit. Notably, the State Government is
posited with the discretion to notify areas in the given State to be remote,
c tribal or difficult areas. That declaration is made on the basis of decision
taken atthe highest level; and is applicable for all the beneficial schemes
of the State for such areas and not limited to the matter of admissions to
Post Graduate Medical Courses. Not even one instance has been brought
to our notice to show that some areas which are not remote or difficult
areas has been so notified. Suffice it to observe that the mere hypothesis
D
that the State Government may take an improper decision whilst notifying
the area as remote and difficult, cannot be the basis to hold that Regulation
· 9 and in particular proviso to Clause IV is unreasonable. Considering the
above, the inescapable conclusion is that the procedure evolved in
Regulation 9 in general and the proviso to Clause (IV) in particular is
just, proper and reasonable and also fulfill the test of Article 14 of the
Constitution, being in larger public interest.
36. The last question that needs to be answered is whether the
arrangement directed in terms of order dated 12.05.2016 by this Court
should have prospective effect or also apply to admissions for academic
F year 2015-16. Ordinarily, as the subject matter of challenge before the
High Court was pertaining to Academic Year 2015-16, the dispensation
directed in terms of Order dated 12'" May 2016 should apply thereto.
However, considering the fact that the said admission process has been
completed and all concerned have acted upon on that basis and that the
candidates admitted to the respective Post Graduate Degree Courses in
G the concerned colleges have also commenced their studies, it may not
be appropriate to unsettle that position given the fact that neither the
directcandidates nor the eligible in-service candidates who had worked
in remote and/or difficult areas in the State approached the Court for
such relief. It is only the in-service candidates who had not worked in
H
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN 609
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

remote and/or difficult areas in the State approached the Court for A
equating them with their counterparts who had worked in remote and/or
difficult areas in the matter of reservation of seats for in-service
candidates. If at this distance of time, the settled admissions were to be
disturbed by quashing the entire admission process for Academic Year
20 I 5-16, it would inevitably result in all the seats in the State almost over
B
500 in number remaining unfilled for one academic year; and that the
candidates to be admitted on the basis of fresh list for Academic Year
2015-16 will have to take fresh admission coinciding with the admissions
for Academic Year 2016-17. That would necessitate doubling the strength
of seats in the respective colleges for the current Academic Year to
accommodate all those students, which may not be feasible and is c
avoidable. In the peculiar facts on hand, we may instead mould the
relief in the appeals before us by directing all concerned to follow the
admission process for Academic Year 2016-17 and onwards strictly in
conformity with the Regulations in force, governing the procedure for
selection of candidates for Post Graduate Medical Degree Courses and
D
including determination of relative merit of the candidates who had
appeared in N EET by giving weightage of incentive marks to eligible in-
service candidates.
37. We must hold thatthe High Court was justified in quashing the
stated Government Order providing for reservation to in- service
candidates, being violative of Regulation 9 as in force. However, we E
modify the operative direction given by the High Court and instead direct
that admission process for Academic Year 2016-17 onwards to the Post
Graduate Degree Course in the State should proceed as per Regulation
9 including by giving incentive marks to eligible in-service candidates in
tenns of proviso to Clause IV of Regulation 9 (equivalentto third proviso F
to Regulation 9(2) of the Old Regulations reproduced in the interim order
dated l 2'h May 2016). We, accordingly, mould the operative order of
the High Court to bring it in conformity with the direction contained in
the interim order dated l 2'h May, 2016 but to be made applicable to
Academic Year 2016-17 onwards on the basis of Regulation 9 as in·
force. We are conscious of the fact that this arrangement is likely to G
affect some of the direct candidates, ifnot a large number ofcandidates
whose applications were already processed by the competent Authority
for concerned Post Graduate Degree Course for Academic Year 2016-
17. However, their admissions cannot be validated in breach of or
H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 6 S.C.R.

A disregarding the mandate of Regulation 9, as in force. The appeals against
the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 7'h
April, 2016 are disposed ofaccordingly.
38. Reverting to the second set ofappeals arising from the judgment
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated
B 27•h May 2016 in Writ Petition No. 12004/2016 we have no hesitation in
upholding the view taken by the High Court that the direction to prepare
fresh merit list vide interim order dated 12'h May 2016 was in respect of
only such eligible in-service candidates as had submitted applications for
admission to Post Graduate Degree Courses for the relevant academic
year within stipulated time. The direction in the interim order dated 12"'
c May 2016 was not to consider all similarly placed persons (eligible in-
service candidates) irrespective of whether they had made applications
for admission to Post Graduate Degree Courses or otherwise. Hence,
this appeal must fail.
39. In so far as Writ Petition No.372/2016 even that should fail as
D we have held Regulation 9 to be a complete Code and a provision for
determining inter-se merit ofthe candidates including by giving weightage
of marks as incentive to eligible in-service candidates who have worked
in notified remote or difficult areas in the State, which is just, reasonable
and necessary in larger public interest.
E 40. We make it clear that we have not examined the correctness
of the fresh merit list prepared by the concerned Authority in terms of
interim order dated 12.05.2016. If any candidate is aggrieved on account
of wrong placement in the fresh merit list or being in violation of this
decision, will be free to question the same by way of appropriate
F proceedings. That challenge can be considered on its own merit.
41. Accordingly, the appeals as well as Writ Petition are disposed
of in the above terms and for the same reasons the accompanying
applications are also disposed of. No order as to costs.
Nidhi Jain Appeals and Writ Petition disposed of.
G