PRANEETHA . S Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a batch of writ petitions, which presents us with a classic situation, which is, that many times policy matters embarked upon with best of intentions can go awry, during implementation.

(2.) The core issue, which, we are called upon to consider is : as to whether the official respondents, i.e., respondents 1 to 3, (hereafter collectively referred to as "the State Government"), have acted in accordance with the proviso to Regulation 9(IV) of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (hereafter referred to in short "PG Regulations of 2000").

(3.) The assertion made by various petitioners before us, is that in preparing the final merit list, the State Government has accorded weightage, without providing a criteria for identifying "remote and/or difficult areas". Therefore, if, the remote and/or difficult areas are not identified, based on a known, reasonable and/or rationale criteria, according to the petitioners, there is every chance that weightage-marks being given to undeserving candidates. 3.1. As a matter of fact, the charge levelled by the petitioners is that weightage has been given to candidates, who are in Government service and have served in areas, which do not qualify as remote and/or difficult areas.