The MP government, however, argued that while its 2018 Rules provided for 30 percent quota reservation for all registered medical officers, the 2022 amendment was introduced to restrict the reservation “only for those in-service candidates who have put in service in rural/remote and difficult areas.”
The amendment, the MP government said, was in tune with a 2021 order of the Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and others v. Union of India and others.
The Supreme Court decision had held that medical officers working in the rural/remote and difficult areas should necessarily get an advantage over those doctors who have not rendered their services in these areas, the MP government said.
While the High Court accepted the State’s submission that the amendment was valid in law, it held that the new proviso could not be introduced mid-session.
“So far as writ petitioners are concerned, we are of the considered view that the denial of the petitioners’ right to apply as in-service candidates has been grossly affected. That they are entitled to be considered as in-service candidates in terms of Rules 2 and 14 of the Rules of 2018. Not including their names in the list of candidates who were entitled for such a relief, in our considered view, is inappropriate,” the High Court said.
Hence, it ruled that the amendment would be prospective and would not affect the present batch of doctors.
“We have concluded that the impugned amendment is prospective and cannot affect the present batch of doctors,” the Court said while directing the state government to come up with a new list of eligible candidates.
The petitioner-doctors were represented by advocates Siddharth R Gupta and Aditya Sanghi.
The respondents were represented by Deputy Advocate General Janhavi Pandit, Senior Advocate KC Ghildiyal and advocates Anoop Nair and Rohan Harne.
Source: Barandbench
