Chattisgarh High Court
Gaurav Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 January, 2022
Author: Arup Kumar Goswami
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami
1
(Proceeding through Video Conferencing)
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 294 of 2022
1. Gaurav Kumar Gupta S/o Amarnath Gupta, Aged About 27 Years
R/o Ward No. 7, Chandaniya Para, Janjgir District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh
2. Vasu Kannauje, S/o Goverdhan Kannauje, Aged About 24 Years
R/o 1, Agrawal Para, Keshla, Kharora, Tilda, Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Medical Education
Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Medical Education, Purana Nurses Hostel, D.K.S. Bhawan
Parisar, Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. Union of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family
Welfare Department New Delhi
5. National Medical Commission, Through Its Secretary General,
Pocket 14, Sector 8, Dwarka Phase 1 New Delhi 110077
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) __________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. S.C. Verma, Advocate General along with Mr. Vikram Sharma, Dy.Government Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Standing Counsel _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge Order on Board Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice 20.01.2022 Heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Satish Chandra Verma, learned Advocate General along with Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for 2 respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned standing counsel, appearing for respondent No.5.
2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the validity of Rule 6(4) of the Chhattisgarh Chikitsha Snatkottar Pravesh Niyam, 2021 , for short, 'the Rules, 2021' as ultra vires on the ground that the same is in contravention of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Though the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not indicated, it is submitted by Mr. Kotecha that the Rule in question is in contravention of the order dated 07.01.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in WPC No. 961 of 2021 (Neil Aurelio Nunes & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors) .
3. Challenge is also made to the seat matrix issued by the respondent No.2 so far as it relates to reservation of 17 seats for Economically Weaker Section (EWS).
4. Prayer is also made to direct the respondents to implement the reservation for EWS Quota by preparing the reservation roster as per the Board of Governor's Guidelines in super-session of Medical Council of India's Guidelines. There is no mention of the date of Guidelines of the Board of Governors. However, Mr. Kotecha submits that same relates to Guidelines dated 27.02.2020 (Annexure-P/4 at page 46).
5. It is submitted by Mr. Kotecha that by the order dated 07.01.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court provided that counseling on the basis of NEET-PG 2021 and NEET-UG 2021 shall be conducted by giving effect to the reservation as provided by the notice dated 29.07.2021, which was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including the 27 per cent 3 reservation for the OBC category and 10 per cent reservation for EWS category in the All India Quota seats.
6. Drawing attention to the seat matrix at Annexure-P/2 at page 17, Mr. Kotecha submits that all the seats pertaining to EWS have been sought to be filled-up from the State Quota seats leaving out the All India Quota seats, which is impermissible.
7. At this juncture, Mr. Verma submits that the seat matrix of Annexure-P/2 at page 17 was dated 29.12.2021 and as such, the same was prior to the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 07.01.2022. It is submitted by him that having regard to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if a fresh Guideline is issued by the respondent No.5 (i.e., National Medical Commission), the State will appropriately modify the seat matrix in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. Mr. Marhas submits that no such fresh Guidelines are required to be issued by the National Medical Commission and the State is obliged to implement the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. In view of the above response of Mr. Marhas, Mr. Verma submits that appropriate steps will be taken to prepare the seat matrix in relation to the EWS Quota in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Guidelines issued by the National Medical Commission. He has further submitted that Rule 6(4) of the Rules, 2021 will not come in the way of taking such steps. Mr. Verma also submits that as the counseling is round the corner, appropriate steps will be taken immediately so that counseling process can go on smoothly. 4
10. In view of the above submissions of Mr. Verma, Mr. Kotecha submits that writ petition may be disposed of recording the submissions of Mr. Verma and giving liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition, if the need arises in future.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking the statements of Mr. Verma on record, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court again, if the need arises in future.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (N.K Chandravanshi)
Chief Justice Judge
Chandra