Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Incentive marks in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers ... vs Union Of India on 31 August, 2020Matching Fragments
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Medical Council of India has made the following submissions against the power of the States to make reservation of seats for inservice candidates in Postgraduate Degree Courses and also in favour of validity of the Regulation 9 of the MCI Regulations, 2000:
5.1. MCI has framed a comprehensive scheme for admission to Postgraduate Medicine (Degree and Diploma) Courses in the form of Regulation 9 of the MCI Regulations, 2000. The scheme envisaged under Regulation 9 for admission to Postgraduate Medicine (Degree and Diploma) is to be read as a whole. The Regulation 9 when read as a whole show that it is inservice doctors, i.e. doctors who have served in remote and difficult or rural areas notified by the State Government, are given the maximum benefit under the said scheme as compared to other candidates. The benefit given to the inservice doctors is in the form of; (1) reservation in Postgraduate diploma courses; and (2) grant of incentive marks in terms of Regulation 9(IV) of MCI Regulations, 2000. The option of availing incentive marks for Postgraduate degree courses or seeking reservation in post graduate degree courses is only available to inservice candidates and the said option is not available to a nonservice candidate;
29. In the present case, we have held that providing 30% reservation to inservice candidates in postgraduate “degree” courses is not permissible. It does not, however, follow that giving weightage or incentive marks to inservice candidates for postgraduate “degree” courses entails in excessive or substantial departure from the rule of merit and equality. For, Regulation 9 recognises the principle of giving weightage to inservice candidates while determining their merit. In that sense, incentive marks given to inservice candidates is in recognition of their service reckoned in remote and difficult areas of the State, which marks are to be added to the marks obtained by them in NEET. Weightage or incentive marks specified in Regulation 9 are thus linked to the marks obtained by the inservice candidate in 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 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. Thus, giving specified incentive marks (to eligible inservice candidates) is permissible differentiation whilst determining their merit. It is an objective method of determining their merit.
31. 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 inservice candidates for determining their merit in NEET.
32. The imperative of giving some incentive marks to doctors 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 healthcare units in the State are lying vacant and unfilled in spite of sincere effort of the State Government. This problem is faced by all States across India. This Court in Snehelata case (1992) 2 SCC 26 had left it to the authorities to evolve norms regarding giving incentive marks to the inservice candidates. The Medical Council of India is an expert body. Its assessment about the method of determining merit of the competing candidates must be accepted as final [State of Kerala v. T.P. Roshana (1979) 1 SCC 572 (SCC para 16); also see Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka (1998) 6 SCC 131]. After due deliberations and keeping in mind the past experience, Medical Council of India has framed regulations, inter alia, providing for giving incentive marks to inservice 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 successive amendments, is an attempt to undo the mischief.
35. As aforesaid, the 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 inservice candidates in notified remote and difficult areas in the State. The proviso prescribes the measure for giving incentive marks to inservice 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 @ 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. It is an objective method of linking the incentive marks to the marks obtained in NEET by the candidate. To illustrate, if an inservice candidate who has worked in a notified remote and/or difficult area in the State for at least one year and has obtained 150 marks out of 200 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 NEET. 15 marks out of 200 marks in that sense would work out to a weightage of 7.5% only, for having served in notified remote and/or difficult areas in the State for one year. Had it been a case of giving 10% marks en bloc of the total marks irrespective of the marks obtained by the eligible inservice candidates in NEET, it would have been a different matter. Accordingly, some weightage marks given to eligible inservice 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 brought into force in larger public interest and not merely to provide institutional preference or for that matter to create separate channel for the inservice candidate, much less reservation. It is unfathomable as to how such a provision can be said to be unreasonable or irrational.