P S CHANDANA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-2019-5-1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on May 01,2019

P S Chandana And Another Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. VS. DR. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Heard Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel, representing Sri K. Ram am oh an, learned counsel on record for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5, Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri S.Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3-Medical Council of India.
(2.)This Writ Petition calls in question the action of respondent No. 1-State Government in not providing incentive weightage of marks for inservice candidates with continuous regular service of 6 years, as provided to any inservice candidates working in tribal/rural areas, arid the petitioners herein also pray for a further declaration to the effect that they are entitled for incentive weightage of marks for 6 years of continuous regular service as provided to inservice candidates working in tribal/rural areas.
(3.)It is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners that as per clause 9 (iv) of the Medical Council of India Regulations, 2000, it is incumbent on the part of the State Government/competent authority to define 'remote and difficult areas', and in the instant case, there is no such exercise undertaken by the respondents, and instead, by way of amendments notified vide G.O.Ms. No.29, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (CI) Department, dated 22.03.2018, the State Government defined 'tribal areas and rural areas' only. It is further contended that the petitioners herein, who are governed by the Andhra Pradesh Insurance Medical Services, are working in E.S.I. Medical Dispensaries located in industrial areas of Chittoor and Proddatur, and having regard to the place of their work, pollution which they suffer and industrial unrest which they experience, some times, the said places are required to be treated as 'difficult areas' though not 'remote areas'. It is further contended that had the Government defined 'difficult areas', as stipulated in clause 9 (iv) of the Medical Council of India Regulations, the petitioners herein would have got an opportunity to secure scats in post graduation courses. It is further contended that once the incentive is given to inservice candidates, it is a 'class' by itself, as such, there cannot be any sub-classification in the said class and the said action offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also the submission of the learned senior counsel that when sub-rule (2) (c) of Rule 3 is not deleted, the benefit of inservice quota should have been extended to the petitioners herein also. In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned senior counsel placed reliance on a decision in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, 2016 9 SCC 749.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.