Bombay High Court seeks Maharashtra govt’s stand on in-service quota for PG medical courses

Advocate V M Thorat for the petitioners stated that a meeting on September 30 last year decided to revive such seat allocation which was existing before 2017. The decision should be implemented, the petitioners said.

The petitioners also said that while in-service quota was provided earlier, after the 2016 Supreme Court decision in the ‘State of Uttar Pradesh v Dinesh Singh Chauhan’ case, which held that such reservation would be ‘illegal’, the Maharashtra government had discontinued the same.

Thorat said that in August 2020, the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in ‘Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v Union of India’ case had clarified that “there is no impediment to provide for in-service quota and asked the State Government to restore the same.”

Thorat submitted that since the issue of providing ‘in-service’ quota had been pending in the high court for more than a year and yet no decision was taken, the plea should be decided at the earliest.

Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni for the state government responded that “the process of admission for this academic year (2021-22) is substantially advanced, and it will not be practicable to alter the same and provide for in-service quota for this academic year.”

Kumbhakoni submitted a communication dated September 6, 2021, issued by the state medical education department, wherein it was opined that instead of in-service quota, incentive marks up to 30 per cent should be given to the candidates.

However, Thorat stated that the state health department had taken a contrary view that “in-service quota would be beneficial from the public health perspective”. He also pointed out that “the incentive marks, which are now projected by the state medical education department as a substitute for the in-service quota, were already present and are not a new factor.”

Kumbhakoni acknowledged that there is a difference in the stands taken by the two departments of the state.

“The Constitution Bench (of Supreme Court) has emphasised the right to health care and the obligation of the State to provide the same in tribal and difficult areas of the state….We also note that this court is seized of various PILs raising the issue of lack of health care in tribal areas of the state wherein various directives have been issued after noticing the shortage of skilled doctors in these areas of the state,” the high court noted and asked the government to file an affidavit by February 1.

On February 1, AG Kumbhakoni informed the bench that a meeting chaired by the state chief secretary was held on January 31, and it was decided that appropriate policy will have to be framed with the approval of the cabinet and therefore sought time to file an affidavit. The court accepted the same and posted further hearing to February 8.