 presented interesting options in the Tamil Nadu Medical Officers’ Association vs Union of India case before the Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud.){kind=link}
Counsels from two sides on Wednesday (April 18) presented interesting options in the Tamil Nadu Medical Officers’ Association vs Union of India case before the Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud.
In these writ petitions, regulation 9(IV) and (VII), after amendment dated 05.04.2018 – Regulation 9(4) and (8) of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, as framed by the Medical Council of India, are under challenge.
In this case, the court will examine the scope of power of state governments to legislate on the procedure of admission of candidates to Post Graduate Medical Courses and for provision of reservation for in-service candidates.
Today the counsels said that regulation 9(4) and 9(8) of 2008 has to be told before the constitutional bench by the petitioners.
Medical education falls under list 3 of the constitution i.e., concurrent list. The state cannot impose the admission and reservation quota solely, it was argued.
The counsel for the petitioner further reads out paragraph 6 of the petition and his various contentions under this petition.
He refers to 3-judges bench cases, having contradicting opinions. 50% people go for state quota. 25 out of 100 seats are reserved for in-service candidate.
The counsel for the petitioner submits a practice wherein the candidate can make a jumping move of 780 marks in the PG course only because the candidate practices in the rural areas, which is unfair.
20-30% seats were reserved for in-service candidates, this practice is ongoing since 1991. No one objected it until Dinesh Chauhan case.
Why would anyone join a private hospital if the candidate joins the government hospital and becomes eligible for the state quota granted by the state government?
Senior counsel Viswanathan also argued before the bench – referring to the 2009 judgment to make it compartment wise. 50% is all India quota. Remaining 50- 25 is in service quota. The reservation is only for diploma.
No conditions have been laid for private practices of doctors.
Senior Counsel V Giri also makes his submissions, on the same line as previously made.
The health centres are in rural areas, one of the reasons why such reservation was made, said senior counsel Vikas Singh. State cannot dilute the quality, which the MCI does not allow as well.
Such an incentive should be given because people don’t prefer going to rural areas or hilly areas.
If the reservation is dropped to 5%, the quality of the merit will drop too. We’re not asserting for a separate quota, submits counsel for the petitioner.
When NEET prepares it’s list, candidates are asked whether they want to join the state of Tamil nadu or not. If yes, they apply separately for the same, said Singh.
The first round of counselling is already over. Till last year, the regulation was followed. The regulation does not take away your rights, submits Giri.
Via the interim, the state loses all its reserved seats.
Entry 25 cannot be invoked. Article 246 is the enabling power.
How is article 32 maintainable?
Eligibility is 3 years for you to be eligible for 10%; the proviso takes care of that. In fact the state government should be the sole authority to make rules on this.
The counsel for the petitioner refers to Preeti Srivastava case and cites it’s relevant paragraphs.
Interim direction issued by the court.
—India Legal Bureau