Dismissed

Srishti Sachidanand and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Dec 2024CWP/292/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the 2023 amendment to Himachal Pradesh's medical PG admission policy. The petitioners contended that imposing a four-year mandatory service in urban areas without incentives was arbitrary. The Court held that the differentiation was rational and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the mandatory four-year service period and denial of incentive for urban service was dismissed.

Srishti Sachidanand and Others Vs State of… — Education and Admissions | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:13282

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.292 of 2024

¶4

Decided on: 5^th December, 2024

¶5

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Srishti Sachidanand and others …..Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of H.P. and others

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Coram

¶10

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶12

For the Petitioners: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan and Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocates.

¶13

For the Respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶14

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶15

Petitioners seek to declare Clause 5.1.4 and

¶16

Annexure ‘A’ inserted through notification dated 04.09.2023 in the ‘Policy for regulating admissions to various Post Graduation and Super Specialty Courses in Medical Education in the State of Himachal Pradesh’, notified on 27.02.2019 as arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, irrational and unconstitutional.

¶17

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

2024:HHC:13282

2. Facts:-

2(i). Respondent-State issued a notification on 30.09.2013 prescribing eligibility for selection of In-service Group (State Quota). State was categorized in four parts and different period of mandatory service was provided for these areas.

¶22

2(ii). Medical Council of India issued a notification on

¶23

05.04.2018, which inter alia provided as under:-

¶24

“(4) The reservation of seats in Medical Colleges/ institutions for respective categories shall be as per applicable laws prevailing in States/Union Territories. An all India merit list as well as State-wise merit list of the eligible candidates shall be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in National Eligibilitycum-Entrance Test and candidates shall be admitted to Postgraduate Courses from the said merit lists only. Provided that in determining the merit of

¶25

candidates who are in service of government/public authority, weightage in the marks may be given by the Government/Competent Authority as an incentive upto 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service in remote and/or difficult areas or Rural areas upto maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test. The remote and/or difficult areas or Rural areas shall be as notified by State Government/Competent authority from time to time.”

¶26

As per the above extracted clause, In-service

¶27

candidates could be given weightage in marks by the State as an incentive upto 10% of the marks obtained by them in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for each year of service in remote and/or difficult areas or rural areas upto

¶28

¶29

2024:HHC:13282

¶30

maximum of 30% of marks. Remote and/or difficult areas or rural areas were to be notified by the State Government from time to time.

¶31

2(iii). Respondents issued a notification on 27.02.2019, framing the ‘Policy for regulating admissions to various Post Graduation and Super Specialty courses in Medical Education applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh’. Annexure ‘A’ of this policy provided incentive percentage for General Duty Officers (GDOs) for doing Post Graduation Course through NEET-PG within the State of Himachal Pradesh. Entire area in the State was categorized from A to F categories and different percentage incentive for rendering one year of service in these areas was laid down.

¶32

Annexure ‘A’ reads as under:-

¶33

_“Category _	Name of District	Medical Blocks/Health Institutions under the areas	Area wise percentage Incentive for one year of service
A	Chamba	_Pangi _
	Lahaul & Spiti	Whole District	10
	_Kinnaur _	Pooh
	Shimla	Area within Dodra Kawar sub- division of Chirgaon Medical Block
B	Chamba	Bharmour, Kihar and Tissa
	Kinnaur	Sangla & Nichar except CHC Bhabanagar & RH Reckong Peo	8
C	Kinnaur	CHC Bhabanagar of Nichar Block, RH Reckong Peo
	Shimla	Chirgaon and Nerwa	6
	Mandi	Janjehli, Chhohar Valley of Padhar Medical Block
	Sirmour	Shillai and Sangrah
D	Kullu	Anni and Nirmund (Except CH Nirmund)

¶34

¶35

2024:HHC:13282

¶36

	Mandi	Bagsaid (except CH Gohar) and Sandhole(except CH Dharampur)	4
	Chamba	Phukhari, Choori and Samote
	Sirmour	Rajgarh(Tansgiri Area)
	Kangra	Mahakal
	Shimla	Nankhari and Tikker
E	All Districts	Other Medical Institutions of the State (excluding the above and below) (A, B, C, D& F)	2
F	All	All urban areas	0”

¶37

The above extracted Annexure ‘A’ providing area-wise percentage incentive was amended under notification dated 04.09.2023. Amended Annexure ‘A’ is as

¶38

under:-

¶39

“Ca	tegory	Nam Dist	e of rict	Medical Blocks/Health Institutions under the areas	Area wise percentage incentive for one year of service	Prior Mandatory service before availing incentive
A	Tribal/ Remotest Areas	(a)	Lahaul & Spiti	Spiti and Primary Health Centres Tingrit, Tindi, Darcha, Gemur and Hinsa of Lahaul area	10	One year
			Kinnaur	Pooh
			Chamba	_Pangi _
		(b)	Kinnaur	Sangla and Nichar, CHC Bhabanagar & RH Reckong Peo & CHC Bhabanagar and RH Reckong Peo	8	Two years
			Lahaul & Spiti	Remaining Health Institutions in Lahaul area
			Chamba	Bharmour
B	Hard/ Difficult Areas	--	Shimla	Area within Dodra Kawar Sub-division of Chirgaon Medical Block	8	Two years
		--	Chamba & Kangra	Kihar and Tissa, Bara Bhangal and Chhota Bhangal area of block Mahakal
C	Difficult Rural Areas	--	Shimla	Remaining areas of block Chirgaon and Nerwa and Kupvi.	6	Three Years
			Mandi	Janjehli and entire _Chhohar Valley. _

¶40

¶41

2024:HHC:13282

¶42

		Sirmaur	Medical Blocks Shillai & Sangrah
All other	--	--	--	4	Three
rural areas of Himachal					Years
Pradesh

¶43

Provided that no incentive will be given for service in urban areas and the mandatory period for service in these areas shall be four years.

¶44

Provided further that as per amended Annexure-A prescribed mandatory services under various categorized areas of the State will qualify for admissions to PG (MD/MS) and PG (MDS) courses through NEET-PG within the State and period beyond prescribed mandatory services shall be counted for incentives as per present amendment and PG/SS policy provisions 27.2.2019. Thus the concerned provisions of the PG/SS Policy stands superseded to this extent.

¶45

(emphasis supplied)”

¶46

In the above extracted amended Annexure ‘A’,

¶47

apart from giving area-wise percentage incentive to the GDOs, prior mandatory service before availing incentive was also made one of the eligibility criteria. Different period of mandatory service for different areas has been prescribed. Petitioners are In-service GDOs serving in the urban areas. Their grievance is to the first proviso, which states that no incentive will be given for service in urban areas and the mandatory period of service in these areas shall be four years before becoming eligible for doing Post Graduation under In-service/State Quota.

¶48

¶49

2024:HHC:13282

¶50

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends

¶51

that the petitioners have no grievance to respondent-State’s not giving them any incentive for their service rendered in urban areas, however, mandatory period of service in urban areas has been made four years in the amended Annexure ‘A’, which has caused prejudice to the petitioners. The petitioners have not only been denied incentive for their service rendered in the urban areas, but they are required to serve for four years before becoming eligible to avail the In-service/State Quota for doing Post Graduation. Hence, the petition.

¶52

4. Pursuant to the directions issued vide order dated 02.12.2024, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record instructions memo dated 04.12.2024.

¶53

5. Notification dated 04.09.2023 assailed by the petitioners in the instant petition had also been assailed in Dr. Varun Gautam & Others Versus State of H.P. & Others² . Hon’ble Division Bench inter alia noticed the decision rendered in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.³ , wherein

¶54

Hon’ble Apex Court had held that allotment of a specific

¶55

2 CWP No.8925 of 2024, decided alongwith connected matters on 10.09.2024

¶56

3 (2021) 6 SCC 568

¶57

¶58

2024:HHC:13282

¶59

percentage of seats in postgraduate degree courses within its State Quota and providing preferential treatment to a particular class, is not beyond the legislative competence of the State as the State Government has the right to provide reservation in the field of employment and education, looking to the specific/special need of public requirement in the particular area. The State is within its power and authority to provide such a preferential treatment to provide better public health in the rural, tribal and hilly areas. Hon’ble Division Bench also took notice of the fact that Annexure ‘A’ appended to the 2023 amendment prescribed different periods of mandatory service in different class of areas before availing incentives. It was then held as under:-

¶60

“28. As regards the plea of arbitrariness and irrationality are concerned, the fact that for service in different areas classified as urban areas, tribal/remotest areas, hard/difficult areas, difficult rural areas and all other rural areas, mentioned in the amendment, different periods of mandatory service are laid down by the 2023 Amendment, indicates application of mind by the respondents to the place of service and the relative hardship experienced by the General Duty Officers (GDOs) serving in those areas.”

¶61

Hon’ble Division Bench rejected the plea of

¶62

arbitrariness and irrationality in State’s action in providing different periods of mandatory service in different areas

¶63

¶64

2024:HHC:13282

¶65

classified as urban areas, tribal/remotest areas, hard/ difficult areas, difficult rural areas and all other rural areas. It was held that different periods of mandatory service for different areas as laid down by the 2023 amendment indicated application of mind by the respondents to the places of service and the relative hardships experienced by the General Duty Officers serving in those areas.

¶66

The aforesaid decision in Dr. Varun Gautam’s² case was relied upon by the Hon’ble Division Bench while dismissing Dr. Anupam Vir Singh Rana Versus State of H.P. & others⁴ . SLP(C) No.23406/2024 preferred against the decision rendered in Dr. Anupam Vir Singh Rana’s⁴ case, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 20.11.2024. The aforesaid findings have, thus, attained finality and are binding upon this Court.

¶67

5. Since the Hon’ble Division Bench has already held in Dr. Varun Gautam’s² case that Annexure ‘A’ to the 2023 Amendment, inserted vide notification dated 04.09.2023, has been issued by the State with due application of mind; Different periods of mandatory service for different areas have been provided indicating application

¶68

4 CWP No.10408 of 2024, decided on 18.09.2024

¶69

¶70

2024:HHC:13282

¶71

of mind by the respondents to the places of service and the relative hardships experienced by the GDOs serving in those areas; and the plea of arbitrariness & irrationality raised against the aforesaid Annexure ‘A’ was held to be not sustainable, this writ petition, raising the same question, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶72

Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 05, 2024 Judge Mukesh

Srishti Sachidanand and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srishti Sachidanand and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Milla Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Sita Ram Vs Kadam Sandeep and Another

Neelam Kumari Vs Union of India and Others

Kuldeep Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another

Neela Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Rajesh Bala Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another