2012 (3) TMI 651 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification and categorization of remote and difficult areas.
2. Validity and propriety of the notification dated November 23, 2011.
3. Interim order passed by the learned single Judge.
4. Competence of the Medical Council of India and the State Government.
5. Discrimination and violation of constitutional provisions.

Summary:

1. Classification and Categorization of Remote and Difficult Areas:
The writ petitions challenged the classification and categorization of remote and difficult areas as unreasonable, arbitrary, and irregular. The notification dated November 23, 2011, by the Government of West Bengal categorized certain districts as remote and difficult areas, which was contended to be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge found a prima facie case that the classification might create a "class within a class."

2. Validity and Propriety of the Notification Dated November 23, 2011:
The notification aimed to reserve 50% of seats in post-graduate diploma courses for Medical Officers who served in remote and difficult areas and provided weightage in marks as an incentive. The writ petitioners argued that the notification was not approved by the Executive Council and the General Council of the concerned University, and it was ultra vires the proviso to Articles 162 read with 154 and 14 of the Constitution of India and sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Medical Councils Act. The appellants contended that the notification followed the amended Regulations of the Medical Council of India and was within the competence of the State.

3. Interim Order Passed by the Learned Single Judge:
The learned single Judge admitted the writ petitions and stayed the impugned notification. The appellants, who were beneficiaries of the notification, argued that the interim order adversely affected their rights without hearing them. The court found that there was a prima facie case in favor of the writ petitioners and justified the interim order. The court held that the interim order did not grant final relief to the writ petitioners and was not ex parte.

4. Competence of the Medical Council of India and the State Government:
The Medical Council of India framed the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, and subsequent amendments. The appellants argued that the Medical Council of India was competent to issue the Regulations u/s 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the State followed these Regulations. The writ petitioners contended that the State Government's notification was discriminatory and arbitrary. The court found that the competence of the State Government to issue the notification and the propriety of the notification required consideration.

5. Discrimination and Violation of Constitutional Provisions:
The writ petitioners argued that the notification caused discrimination based on geographical lines and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court found that the rationale behind choosing certain areas as remote and difficult needed to be considered. The contention that the notification conferred benefits retrospectively and was discriminatory was found to have some justification.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the interim order granted by the learned single Judge was upheld. The court found that the writ petitioners had a prima facie case and an arguable one. The connected applications for stay were also dismissed. The court's observations were prima facie, and the learned single Judge would decide the writ petitions without being influenced by these observations.