SC says no to quota for govt. doctors in PG courses

‘Such a reservation will lower standards of education’

Updated - April 25, 2018 06:59 pm IST - NEW DELHI

NEW DELHI, 19/04/2018: A view of the Supreme Court of India, in New Delhi on April 19, 2018.
Photo: Shanker Chakravarty

NEW DELHI, 19/04/2018: A view of the Supreme Court of India, in New Delhi on April 19, 2018. Photo: Shanker Chakravarty

In a severe blow to government doctors in Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition seeking exclusive quota for ‘in service doctors’ in admission to postgraduate medical degree courses.

A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra dismissed an application for interim relief to stay Regulation 9(4) and (8) of the Medical Council of India’s Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations of 2000.

The provisions provide reservation to ‘in-service doctors’ in postgraduate diploma courses and not for degree courses. The application also sought a direction to allow the Tamil Nadu government have 50 percent quota for ‘in-service doctors’.

The Regulation provided up to 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service spent in remote and/or difficult areas.

Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud rejected the contention that Tamil Nadu had been following the pattern of reservation in respect of 50% of State quota for the ‘in-service’ candidates from 2007 and it should not be disturbed.

The court said the MCI had, as an expert body, proceeded on a principled basis. Any interim relief now would amount to a mandatory final order, which could not be countenanced. The proviso to Rule 9(IV) did not contemplate a reservation for ‘in-service’ candidates in postgraduate courses, but only the grant of incentive marks.

The Bench, therefore, said prescribing a separate source of entry for ‘in-service’ degree candidates would directly result in lowering of standards in medical education. A separate reservation for in-service candidates in degree courses would impinge upon the regulatory powers of the MCI.

To the State’s arguments that it should not be denuded of its power to frame a policy for admission, the Bench observed that the term ‘reservations’ referred to in the opening sentence of the Regulations were obviously constitutional reservations for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and not for ‘in-service’ government doctors.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.