K M MOHAMMED RIAZ Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Petitions are filed seeking a declaration that Section 5(4) of the Kerala Medical Officers Admission to Postgraduate Courses under Service Quota Act, 2008 (Kerala Act 29 of 2008), hereinafter referred to as "the State Act", in so far as it lays down that admission to Postgraduate Medical Education in service quota shall be on the basis of the seniority, is arbitrary and illegal. Some of the provisions of the Prospectus for the relevant year for admission to postgraduate medical education in the service quota are also sought to be quashed. When these matters came up for final hearing, the Petitioners, having regard to the passage of time, pressed only for the relief of declaration as to the invalidity of the statutory provision under challenge.

(2.) The pleadings on behalf of the Petitioners are that Section 5(4) of the State Act in so far as it relates to prescription that selection for admission to Postgraduate Courses shall be solely on the basis of seniority, without even prescribing a minimum eligibility, is in violation of the Regulations issued by the Medical Council of India, the competent authority under the Indian Medical Council of India Act, 1956, for short, "the IMC Act". The argument advanced is that the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, "MCI Regulations", for brevity, provide the prescriptions as to the minimum requirement that all candidates have to be selected only on the basis of inter se academic merit and that the M.C.I. Regulations also provide for weightage etc. and the State cannot legislate in relation to matters which are provided for specifically in the IMC Act and in the MCI Regulations, not only because such provisions are in place, but also because the making of those provisions is referable only to Entry 66 of List I of Seventh Schedule and the impugned State legislation cannot be pushed off as one having been made with reference to Entry 25 in List III. It is accordingly argued that the fact that the State Act was reserved for consideration of the President and has received his assent in terms of Article 254(2) of the Constitution, does not save the State legislation, to the extent impugned, from being impeached as one made without legislative competence. This is the crux of the contentions and submissions.

(3.) Per contra, the State of Kerala, through the learned Advocate General, and the Association of Medical Officers impleaded as additional Respondent, as also those who have obtained the benefit of the impugned provision, contended that applying the doctrine of pith and substance, the impugned State Act is wholly different from the substance of the I.M.C. Act and the M.C.I. Regulations. It is argued that the substance of the State Act is referable to Entry 25 of List III and it does not conflict with Entry 66 of List I. On such basis, it is contended that the examination of rival contentions ought to be on the basis of the principle of dominant purpose of the legislation under attack. The in-service officers also attempt to show that on ground reality, allotment of quota, as is provided for by the State Act, is necessary to render justice to that category of aspirants for higher education in medicine.