The Supreme Court on August 31 held that the state has the legislative competence or authority to provide for a separate source of entry for the in-service doctors seeking admissions in post graduate degree/diploma medical courses.

For our comprehensive coverage and latest updates on COVID-19 click here.

The top court ruled that Medical Council of India (MCI) has no power to make any provision for reservation, more particularly, for in-service candidates seeking admissions for post graduate degree and diploma courses. It, however, said that the policy must provide that subsequent to obtaining the postgraduate degree by the concerned in-service doctors, who avail the route of separate channel for admissions, they must execute a bond to serve the state in the rural, tribal and hilly areas at least for five years.

A bench of Justices said, The State Government have the right to provide reservation and in the field of employment and education, looking to the specific/special need of public requirement in the particular area. There is no constitutional bar to take further affirmative action as taken by the State Government in the cases to achieve the goal. It said preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance. Thus, when the State provides a separate source of admission for in-service doctors as a distinct class and within the State quota and the object is laudable, the State is within its power to provide such separate source of admission in exercise of the powers under Entry 25 List III, read with Entry 6, List II.

The bench, in an unanimous 242-page verdict, said that a healthy body is a very foundation for all human activities and in a welfare State, it is the obligation of the State to ensure the creation and the sustaining of conditions congenial to good health. It said that the maintenance and improvement of public health have to rank high as these are indispensable to the very physical existence of the community and on the betterment of these depends the building of the society of which the Constitution makers envisaged.

The State has the legislative competence and/or authority to provide for a separate source of entry for in-service candidates seeking admission to postgraduate degree/diploma courses, in exercise of powers under Entry 25, List III, it said. It added, however, it is observed that policy must provide that subsequent to obtaining the postgraduate degree by the concerned in-service doctors obtaining entry in degree courses through such separate channel serve the State in the rural, tribal and hilly areas at least for five years after obtaining the degree/diploma and for that, they will execute bonds for such sum the respective State may consider fit and proper.

The bench clarified that the present decision shall operate prospectively and any admissions given earlier taking a contrary view shall not be affected by this judgment. The Justice, who authored the verdict on behalf of the bench, said that the Entry 66, List I of the Constitution is a specific entry having very limited scope and it deals with coordination and determination of standards in higher education.

The Medical Council of India which has been constituted under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is the creature of the statute in exercise of powers under Entry 66 List I and has no power to make any provision for reservation, more particularly, for in-service candidates by the concerned States, in exercise of powers under Entry 25 List III, the bench said. It said that the Regulation 9 of MCI Regulations, 2000 does not deal with and/or make provisions for reservation and/or affect the legislative competence and authority of the concerned States to make reservation and/or make special provision like the provision providing for a separate source of entry for in-service candidates seeking admission to postgraduate degree courses.

Therefore the concerned States to be within their authority and/or legislative competence to provide for a separate source of entry for in-service candidates seeking admission to postgraduate degree courses in exercise of powers under Entry 25 of List III, the bench said. The top court said, Regulation 9 of MCI Regulations, 2000 to the extent tinkering with reservation provided by the State for in-service candidates is ultra vires on the ground that it is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India".

The Justice concurred with the findings given by another Justice on behalf of the bench but gave his own reasoning to arrive at the view. He directed that the doctors, who are already undergoing the postgraduate degree courses in West Bengal, Gujarat, Haryana, Kerala, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu shall not be disturbed from pursuing their courses. The constitution bench dealt with the issue due to the contradictory views taken in two verdicts of the top court.

The three-Judge bench of the top court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh versus Dinesh Singh Chauhan (2016 case) held that MCI Regulations do not provide for any reservation for in-service government doctors in PG degree courses, and therefore, the State Government order providing the reservation for PG degree courses for in-service government doctors was held to be illegal.

A three Judge bench in 2018, however, did not agree with the view taken in the 2016 case and referred the issue to a larger bench.