Dr. Ashok Kumar Khare vs State Of M.P

The constitutional validity of Regulations 9(iv) Proviso and 9(vii) of Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 2000 (for

brevity 'Regulations of 2000') and Rules 2(vi), 2(vii), 5(ii) and 6(iii) of M.P. Autonomous Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course (Degree/Diploma)

Admission Rules 2017 (for brevity 'Rules of 2017') is assailed in the present petition filed u/Art. 226 of the Constitution by which the concept of rural

and urban area which was earlier defined in generic manner has now been exhaustively defined by stipulating that the area falling within radius of 25

kms measured from 0 km in case of municipal corporation and 10 kms in case of municipal council, to be urban area. By necessary implication the

area falling beyond this defined urban area would be treated as rural area for the purpose of weightage awarded to in-service candidates for

admission to post-graduate courses in the field of medicine.

Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to para 62 of the Division Bench decision of this court rendered at the principal seat at Jabalpur in Dr.

Brijesh Yadav & others Vs. State of M.P. in W.P. 4316/17 decided on 1/5/2017 submits that if the impugned criteria of rural area is allowed to remain

on the statute books a large number of in-service candidates posted at villages situated outside the territorial limits of municipal corporation/municipal

council but within the 25/10 kms radius, would be deprived of the weightage for admission to the P.G.courses which was otherwise available to them.

In sum and substance the definition of rural/urban area stipulated in the impugned Rule is neither reasonable nor has any nexus with the object sought

to be achieved by the said impugned Rule.

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand relying upon decision of Apex Court in State of M.P. and others Vs. Gopal D. Tirthani and others,

(2003) 7 SCC 83 and Division Bench decision of this court rendered at the principal seat in Brijesh Yadav (supra), submits that inspired by the verdict

of Apex Court (supra) the State has attempted to iron out the creases to remove ambiguity by bringing clarity and specificity in the impugned Rules by

defining the concept of rural and urban area in an exhaustive manner, thereby eliminating the possibility of arbitrariness from coming into play. It is

further submitted by the State counsel that the impugned Rule has a direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The object it is urged is to

eliminate the mischief of undue benefit of weightage for admission to PG courses getting available to those in-service candidates who are posted in

villages falling immediately outside the territorial limits of municipal corporation/municipal council but within the 25/10 kms radius. Consequently,

dismissal of this petition is sought by the State.

This court has no manner of doubt that the impugned Rule now lays down the definition of rural and urban area in more specific terms with greater

clarity rendering the rule to be comparatively much less arbitrary and unreasonable. The aspect in regard to reasonableness of radius of 25/10 kms

area qua municipal corporation and municipal council cannot be gone into by this court since the State is entitled to a reasonable amount of play in the

joints and elbow room to lay down the nitty and gritties while framing any provision.

This court is bolstered in it's view by the decision of Division Bench in Dr.Brijesh Yadav (supra), relevant para 94 & 95 are reproduced below for

ready reference and convenience :-

 “94. We are constrained to say so in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal D.Tirthanni (supra), wherein the Supreme Court

after considering the decision rendered in the case of Narayan Sharma (Dr) Vs. Dr. Pankaj Kr. Lekhar (2000) 1 SCC 44 in paragraph 32 of the judgment which

has already been quoted in the preceding paragraphs to the effect that “any place just outside a municipal town is one which is not situated in a municipal

area and which will fall within the scope of the sub-rule. The doctor working in an institution situated in a place immediately adjacent to but outside a municipal

town will get the benefit of the rule, while in practice, he will also get all the benefits available in the urban areas situated within the municipal limits. The rule

does not require the doctor to serve in a remote rural area for getting the benefit of the rule."" and has held that all areas not situated in Municipal areas or

situated just outside or near such Municipal areas cannot be treated as rural areas or for that matter difficult and / or remote areas.

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as aforesaid, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the prayer made therein to grant

incentive marks for all services rendered outside urban areas, cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected. As we have stated earlier, the benefit of incentive marks

and reservation for services in difficult and remote areas in terms of the MCI Regulations, have to be granted keeping the purposive definition of the words and

the object and purpose contained therein in mind which we reiterate to mean considering the services of doctors in those areas where health services are deficient

and where the doctors are generally reluctant and unwilling to work and avoid posting on account of non-availability and lack of good living conditions,

absence of modern facilities and quality of life which is otherwise available to them and their family members in the urban areas including better educational

facilities of their children and other such factors which generally compel the doctors to avoid posting in the areas and where the State Government has to grant

special benefit and incentives to obtain the services of the doctors. We, however, reiterate that such areas would not include urban areas and such rural areas

which are adjacent or contiguous to urban areas in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal D. Tirthani (supra). ''

From the above it is evident as daylight that the impugned Rule satisfies the test of Article 14 of the Constitution and thus no interference is called for

in writ jurisdiction of this court.

Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed in limine at admission stage.