India

DB stays eligibility of NRHM doctors for benefits of MCI"s Regulation 9

golden yug
[ May 07, 2017 ] In a LPA filed by State against the judgment of Writ Court whereby Writ Court holds that NRHM doctors are eligible for the benefits of Regulation 9 of MCI regulations 2000 which provides that a doctor who served in difficult/remote areas shall be entitled to 10% additional marks for each completed year of service, A Division Bench of the State High Court Comprising Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Tashi Rabstan after hearing Advocate General Jehangir Iqbal Ganai for the state, stayed the operation and effect of impugned judgment dated 26.04.2017 till next date of hearing. During the course of hearing Advocate General Jehangir Iqbal Ganai submits that proviso to Regulation 9 of the Regulations does not apply to the fact situation of the case as the State Government has not defined the notified areas. The respondents being the local candidates were employed in view of SRO 401 dated 29.12.2009. It is, further, submitted that the proviso to Regulation 9 provides that weight-age of the marks may be given by the Government/ competent authority by the State Government to inservice candidates of government/ public authority. It is, further, submitted that the regulations did not define public authority and the private respondents who were employed by the National Rural Health Mission under a scheme do not fall within the ambit of public authority. It is, further, submitted that the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India are mandatory and are binding on the State Government. However, in the absence of notification of the difficult area, the proviso to Regulation 9 has not come into existence. Division Bench after consdering the arguments observed that the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P and others. v. Dr. Dinesh Singh Chouhanhas inter alia held that proviso to Regulation 9 does not envisage reservation for inservice candidates but only postulates giving weightage of marks to the specified inservice candidates who have worked in notified, remote or difficult areas in the State. In paragraph 27 of the aforesaid decision, the object of grant of incentive marks to the doctors working in difficult rural areas has been explained. Admittedly, in the instant case, the State Government has not defined the difficult areas as prescribed in proviso to Regulation 9 of the Regulations. In OWP No.498/2016, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by Srinagar Bench of this Court on which the single Judge has placed reliance and stayed the effect and operation of the judgment.