ATIN KUNDU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh, 2002 AIR SCW 3742 : AIR 2002 SC 3230, the Apex Court has, if one may say so with respect, very aptly observed that "when time of admission to Medical Courses arrives, immediately comes to mind Shakespeares' Othello, where it has been written "Chaos is come again". Inevitable result is that considerable time is lost by candidates chasing vires instead of virus". This very aptly applies to the case at hand.

(2.) The petitioners, who are 30 in number, have preferred this writ petition calling in question the validity of Rule 6.3 of the "Chhattisgarh Sanatakottar Pravesh Pariksha Niyam, 2002" in short, "PG Rules, 2002" which mandates that completion of two years service in a Rural Primary Health Centre under the State Government on or before 30th April of the Pre-PG Examination is a must. The immediate effect being that even those candidates who have an outstanding academic career will not be able to take up the Pre-PG Examination in case they have not done service under a Rural Primary Health Centre for a period of two years though they may have been practicing in a rural area.

(3.) According to the petitioners, since coordination and determination of standards in institutions of higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions is a matter falling under Entry 66 of List 1 of the VII Schedule to the Constitution of India and, the Medical Council of India having framed the Post Graduate Medical Regulations, 2000, the State Government could not, in exercise of legislative powers under Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent), have any power to legislate and provide for an eligibility criteria for admission to Post Graduate Courses as it is an occupied field under Entry 66 of the Union List. It was submitted that the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is a Central legislation and the regulations framed thereunder are a complete code which lay down the method that may be adopted for selection of the candidates for the Pre-PG course and the qualification which they should possess in order to make them eligible for being considered. The State cannot, according to the petitioners, fix any other criteria or lay down any other standard, which may have the effect of debarring a student to take up the Pre-PG test though he may be qualified and eligible as per the Medical Council of India Regulations. In short, the case of the petitioners is that Rule 6.3 of the Post Graduate Rules not only curtails but literally takes away the right of a candidate, who is otherwise qualified under the Medical Council of India Regulations to appear at a Pre-PG test unless he does compulsory service under a Rural Primary Health Centre under the State and this means 100 per cent reservation for in-service candidates which is illegal. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent-State that the State Government has full legislative competence and power to frame a rule to regulate admission into medical colleges and lay down conditions of eligibility, more so when these institutions are run out of the funds of the State Government and so long as the standards of medical education as prescribed by the Union Legislation are not in any way diluted or lowered down. It is the further case that the impugned Rule (6.3) relates to eligibility for appearance at the Pre-PG Examination and it in no way dilutes or lowers down the standard of education laid down by the Regulations of 2002 and on the contrary, the training and exposure will better equip them for higher studies. According to the State, the power of the Union to legislate is confined only to make law in regard to "standards of Medical Education" and not beyond that and the State has not in any way lowered the standard of medical education laid down by the Medical Council of India by framing Rule 6.3. At any rate, according to the State, the Government has taken a policy decision that only those, who serve in a Rural Primary Health Centre, will be eligible to take up the Pre-PG test and do Post Graduation. This policy decision, it was submitted, has been taken because the doctors were refusing to take up rural service because of which the rural population was suffering and in order to implement the obligation of providing rural health, Rule 6.3 has been incorporated. And that being a policy decision, it is not open to challenge before the Court. At any rate, it was submitted that right to education not being a Fundamental Right, the petitioners have no cause of action.