Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. The learned counsels for the the petitioners submit that the MCI Regulations do not provide or restrict the 4512/2017, 4526/2017 grant of incentive marks to services rendered in tribal areas only. On the contrary, the Regulation provides for granting incentive marks and reservation for services rendered in difficult and remote areas. It is submitted that there are several areas in the State of Madhya Pradesh which are difficult and remote including those areas in which the petitioners have worked and, therefore, in the absence of any clear and specific stipulation in the Rules and Regulations of the MCI restricting the grant of benefit to services rendered in tribal areas only, the act of the State in restricting the benefit only to services rendered in tribal areas is contrary to the object and purpose of providing incentive marks to in-service doctors like the petitioners who have rendered services in remote and difficult areas and, therefore, the impugned Rules offend the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

62. In the case of Dinesh Singh Chouhan (supra) the Supreme Court while restating the aforesaid and upholding the laudable object and purpose of granting incentive marks and reservation contained in Regulation 9, has upheld the grant of such incentive and reservation in para- 33, which has already been quoted in the preceding paragraphs by taking into consideration the fact that such 4512/2017, 4526/2017 incentive and reservation serves the dual purpose, firstly, it would attract doctors to opt for rural services on account of the fact that they would stand a good chance to get admission in post-graduate degree courses of their choice on account of the incentive marks and secondly, the rural health care units would be benefitted by the services of such doctors who are willing to work in notified rural or difficult areas in the State and, therefore, such a provision in the Regulation subserves larger public interest. The same view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in case of Dinesh Singh Chouhan (supra) in paragraphs 42 to 44 and it has infact been held in paragraph 44 that 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, deserves incentive marks to be reckoned for determining merit. From a perusal of paragraph 44 quoted in the earlier part of the judgment, it is further clear that the Supreme Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the regulation has vested the discretion in the State to notify areas as remote/tribal or difficult areas which decision has to be taken at the highest level and is applicable for all the beneficial 4512/2017, 4526/2017 schemes of the State for such areas and is not limited to the matter of admission to the post-graduate courses.

86. At this stage the learned Government Advocate submits that the aforesaid classification made by Annexure P-6 cannot now be taken into consideration after the impugned amendments in the rules have been made pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court as after the aforesaid amendments and in view of the provisions of the MCI Regulations, the State has no power to sub-classify difficult and/or remote areas into difficult areas, most difficult areas and inaccessible areas, more so, as the regulations provide for granting 10% marks for each year's service in difficult and/or remote areas up to a maximum of 30%. It is stated that prior to the impugned amendments the State had been granting graded incentive marks to doctors having worked in rural areas by granting additional incentive marks to those who had worked in notified tribal areas. It is submitted that in view of the MCI Regulations the State has now done away with such classification and the award of graded incentive 4512/2017, 4526/2017 marks and is granting incentive marks at the flat rate of 10% for each year of service in difficult and remote areas up to a maximum of 30% and it is for this reason that the State has selected and defined difficult and remote areas to mean the 89 notified tribal sub-plan areas which are the most difficult and remote areas in the State.

97. We are also of the considered opinion that as the MCI Regulations had restricted the grant of incentive marks to those candidates who had worked in the difficult and/or remote areas since 2012 itself inspite of which the State continued to grant reservation in post-graduate degree and diploma courses to in service candidates and also continued to grant incentive marks for all kinds of service rendered by the in-service candidates including services in urban and rural areas in different proportions which apparently and admittedly was contrary to the MCI Regulations and was, therefore, quashed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11270-11271/2016 decided on 25-11-2016, therefore, as far as the contention regarding estoppel and promissory estoppel raised by the petitioner is concerned, it is held to be meritless to the extent that the benefit granted by the admission rules to candidates working in urban and sub- urban areas was contrary to the binding statutory MCI Regulations, however, as far as those in service candidates are concerned who are entitled to incentive marks and 4512/2017, 4526/2017 reservations in accordance with the MCI Regulations, we propose not to express any opinion in respect of issue of estoppal raised by them in the present petition in view of the directions that this Court presently proposes to issue.