SC issues notice to Govt over SLP filed by docs on reservation
   Date :30-Apr-2022

SC issues notice to Govt MP 
 
 
 
Legal Correspondent
A two judges’ bench of the Supreme Court presided by Justices D Y Chandrachud and Hima Kohli, on Friday, issued notices to the MP State in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by a number of Government doctors and medical officers from the State who have challenged the de-reservation of 30 per cent seats earmarked for them in PG Medical Courses. The SLPs were filed against the judgement of the division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had affirmed the de-reservation of 30 per cent quota seats after conclusion of second round of counselling, holding the same to be in tune with existing Rules 4 and 14 of the Medical Admission Rules 2018 framed by the State. The SC, however, declined to grant interim relief for the current year, but agreed to examine the Constitutional question of law for the ensuing academic year 2022-23, in view of the gravity of the problems pointed out by the appellant doctors. Appellant Dr Shaline Agrawal and others were represented through Advocates Siddharth R Gupta, Abhikalp P Singh and Shivam Baghel, wherein the State has been directed to respond in four weeks.
Petitioners are all In-service doctors who had served in the remote, rural, tribal and interior villages of the State for the prescribed period of three years and above and were claiming the benefit of 30 per cent reserved quota in the PG Medical Courses provided by the State of MP for such doctors. The State in the counselling and admission process conducted for the academic Year 2021-22 had dereserved all these in-service quota seats and allotted them to open/direct category candidates, which was assailed by all of them before the High Court on the primary ground that there is no such provision in the Parent Rules for de-reservation/conversion of seats from In-service quota to Non-
service quota. It was further argued that the Constitutional reservation for SC, ST, OBC & EWS shall apply within the separately earmarked quotas which stand in silos separately from each other. Accordingly it was argued by the Petitioners before the High Court as well as the Supreme Court that for implementing the reservation, the seat should not be converted to non-service quota but should be retained within the same dedicated compartment of 30 per cent High Court in the impugned Judgement while refusing to grant the Relief sought held as follows: “A minute reading of sub Rule (1) and (2) of Rule 14 leaves no room for any doubt that ‘vacancies’ means all the vacancies and not vacancies confined to ‘in-service candidates’. Putting it differently, in sub Rule (2) of Rule 14 it is mentioned about vacancies of sub Rule (1) of Rule 14(1). At the cost of repetition, in our considered opinion, the vacancy of sub Rule (1) relates to the entire set of vacancies of all subjects available in Government
and private medical colleges as well as in dental
hospitals.