Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1334 (MAD)

Preethiswary S. v. G. Kamaleshwaran

2017-05-03

K.K.SASIDHARAN, S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2017
JUDGMENT : K.K.SASIDHARAN, J. Introduction:- (a) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking into account the factual position that provision in the form of grant of weightage marks was introduced to give incentive to the in-service candidates and to attract more graduates to join as medical officers, in the health sector and more particularly in rural areas and that such incentives is just, proper and reasonable and fulfills the test of Article 14 of the Constitution being in larger public interest, made the following observation relating to service in remote and difficult areas, on 16 August 2016, in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Dinesh Singh Chauhan ( 2016 (9) SCC 749 ) : “To determine the academic merit of candidates, merely securing high marks in NEET is not enough. The academic merit of the candidate must also reckon the services rendered for the common or public good. Having served in rural and difficult areas of the State for one year or above, the incumbent having sacrificed his career by rendering services for providing health care facilities in rural areas, deserve incentive marks to be reckoned for determining merits”. (emphasis supplied) (b) The methodology adopted by the State for reckoning the services rendered by the Doctors in the remote and different areas for awarding incentive marks is the subject matter of this litigation. The core issue :- 2. Whether the State Government has the authority to issue any executive order identifying the remote and difficult areas for the purpose of granting weightage by incentive marks for admission to Post Graduate Courses and fixing marks for service in the Government hospitals in such areas, notwithstanding the post graduate Medical Regulations, 2000, issued by the Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as MCI), indicating a different methodology for award of incentive marks by weightage is the core issue that arises for determination in these batch of Writ Petitions, posted before us during summer vacation, pursuant to the request made by all the parties, in view of the deadline fixed for completion of selection process for admission to “Post Graduate Course, for the academic year 2017-18”. 3. Background of the litigation :- (a) The First respondent in the intra court appeals in W.A.No.484 of 2017 etc. 3. Background of the litigation :- (a) The First respondent in the intra court appeals in W.A.No.484 of 2017 etc. batch filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.6031 of 2017 for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to the Director of medical Education and Selection Committee constituted for admission to the Post Graduate Courses, to implement Regulation 9(IV) of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as P.G. Regulations) by adding weightage marks for his medical service in a hilly area, with the marks obtained in National Eligibility cum Entrance Test, (NEET), for admission to Post Graduate Course against the 50% reserved category for in-service candidates for the academic year 2017-18. (b) The first respondent in the intra court appeal in W.A.No.453 of 2017 filed W.P.No.6094 of 2017, challenging the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 8 February 2017 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu adding more areas to the list of backward, rural, hilly and remote areas and the grant of weightage marks to the medical officers, working in those areas for admission to the Post Graduate Course for the academic year 2017-18. Before the writ Court, the Secretary to Government, made a written assurance that weightage marks would be awarded taking into account the areas declared in the prospectus for the year 2016-17 and that the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 8 February 2017 would be kept in abeyance. The learned Single Judge recorded the said submission and disposed of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.6094 of 2017 along with 14 other Writ Petitions. The order dated 20 March 2017 in W.P.No.6094 of 2017 is challenged in W.A.No.453 of 2017. (c) The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.6031 of 2017 holding that the State cannot make any law in conflict with the regulations framed by M.C.I. The learned Judge observed that the Post Graduate Regulations would hold good for the Post Graduate Admission 2017-18 and weightage marks should be given in accordance with the proviso to regulation 9(iv) and not in the light of the methodology indicated in the prospectus issued by the Directorate of Medical Education for the year 2017-18. The learned Judge made it clear that Regulation 9 is the only effective and permissible basis for granting admission to in-service candidates. The learned Judge directed the Selection Committee to award 30% marks to the Writ Petitioner by way of weightage. 4. The learned Judge made it clear that Regulation 9 is the only effective and permissible basis for granting admission to in-service candidates. The learned Judge directed the Selection Committee to award 30% marks to the Writ Petitioner by way of weightage. 4. Summary of submissions:- (a) The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants in W.A.No.453 of 2017 contended that there is no conflict between the Post Graduate Regulations framed by the MCI and the method adopted by the State Government for the grant of incentive marks. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the Government of Tamil Nadu has been giving incentive marks for in-service candidates taking into account their rural service at least from the year 1992. The system worked well all these years. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the first respondent in the appeal failed to challenge the prospectus issued by the Government. The learned Single Judge, notwithstanding the fact that there was no challenge to the prospectus in the writ petition made sweeping observations about the validity of the prospectus. The learned Additional Advocate General further contended that inspite of the fact that the first respondent is not entitled for incentive marks in accordance with the Regulations issued by the MCI or the State, still, a mandamus was issued to award him weightage marks. The learned Additional Advocate General placed reliance on the judgment of the Constitutional Bench in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [ (2016) 7 SCC 353 ] and contended that the scope of Entry 66 must be construed limited to its actual sense of "determining the standards of higher education"and not of laying down admission process. (b) The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.498 and 499 of 2017 took us through the prospectus, the judgment in Modern Dental College and Research Centre (cited supra) and a Full Bench decision in Dr.Murari vs. Dr.R.Kamalakannan, ( 1999 (3) CTC 675 ), and contended that since there was no challenge to the prospectus, the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the Doctors were given a promise that they would be given incentive marks and as such, the State is bound to adhere to its promise, as otherwise, it would be a violation of the principle of legitimate expectation. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the Doctors were given a promise that they would be given incentive marks and as such, the State is bound to adhere to its promise, as otherwise, it would be a violation of the principle of legitimate expectation. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the State is well within its powers under Entry 25 List III to evolve a method for awarding incentive marks. It was contended that the Proviso to Regulation 9 (iv) is illustrative and not exhaustive and as such, it has to be read harmoniously with the method adopted by the State for giving weightage marks. (c) The learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.490 of 2017 contended that the learned Single Judge failed to take into account Section 10(D) of the Indian Medical Council Act, which was enacted after reviewing the judgment reported in 2014 (2) SCC 305 . (d) The learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.536 of 2017 contended that the State has not violated the MCI Regulation, by adopting the method for giving weightage marks. According to the learned counsel, 90% of the weightage marks would cover the marks obtained in NEET and as such, the norms adopted by the State is not violative of the MCI Regulations. (e) The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.527 of 2017 contended that the State was perfectly correct in fixing the incentive marks. According to the learned Senior Counsel, benefit should be given to all the candidates, taking into their service in the rural areas and it should not be limited to the remote and difficult areas indicated in the MCI Regulations. (f) The learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.491 of 2017 adopted the arguments of the appellants in W.A.Nos.498 and 499 of 2017. (g) The learned Senior Counsel for MCI contended that the prescription in the prospectus issued by the State giving reservation to in-service candidates is in violation of the MCI Regulations prescribing reservation only for the Diploma Course. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the Supreme Court time and again held that the MCI is the only authority to frame Regulations and norms in the field of Medical Education. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the Supreme Court time and again held that the MCI is the only authority to frame Regulations and norms in the field of Medical Education. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that Government of Tamil Nadu issued the prospectus in question in total violation of the Medical Council of India norms and as such, those clauses are all liable to be set aside. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the prospectus proceeds as if one mark would be given to the service as well as non-service candidates, which is not contemplated in the Regulation framed by the MCI. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the prospectus to the extent it violated the norms prescribed by the MCI is liable to be quashed. (h) The learned counsel for the impleaded parties in W.A.No.484 of 2017 adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the Medical Council of India. According to the learned counsel, the State erred in framing a policy in total violation of the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India. (i) The learned counsel for the first respondent in W.A.No.484 of 2017 contended that there is no need to challenge the prospectus in view of the settled legal position that the State Government is not given power to evolve a method for awarding incentive marks, in case, there is a Regulation issued by the MCI for the very same purpose. The learned counsel contended that the first respondent in the respective writ petitions filed the writ petition in W.P.No.6031 of 2017 as he is entitled to 30% marks on account of his service in a hilly area. The learned counsel justified the direction given by the learned single Judge. (j) The learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.453 of 2017 contended that the Government was not correct in keeping the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 8 February, 2017 in abeyance. The learned counsel contended that the appellants are also entitled to claim incentive marks in view of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.29. Since the Government Order is now kept in abeyance, the appellants are denied of an opportunity to take part in the selection process for admission to the Post Graduate medical course in the notified category. 5. The individual issues :- 1. Since the Government Order is now kept in abeyance, the appellants are denied of an opportunity to take part in the selection process for admission to the Post Graduate medical course in the notified category. 5. The individual issues :- 1. Whether the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent in W.A.No.498 of 2017 and other connected Writ appeals is maintainable without challenging the Government regulation awarding incentive marks as indicated in the prospectus for 2017-18; 2. Whether the method evolved by the State Government for giving weightage for service in remote and difficult areas by way of incentive marks is in conflict with the method prescribed by the Medical Council of India in the Post Graduate Admission Regulations, 2000. 6. Resolution of issues:- The State is enjoined to take steps for the welfare of its people taking into account the constitutional mandate. The state is expected to provide medical facilities to the poor and downtrodden people, living in hilly, tribal, backward, remote, rural and difficult areas. The right to live a healthy life is now elevated to a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The medical officers appointed by the State in its medical service were reluctant to go to the villages and more particularly in tribal and hilly areas for rendering medical service. In cities, better work environment and facilities are available and this luxury culture prompted many a medical professionals to settle down in municipal areas and metropolitan cities. This situation made the Central Government and States to evolve a method to attract talents to the rural India. The Government both at the Centre and States felt that grant of weightage marks for discharging medical service in rural, backward, hilly and tribal areas would enable the medical professionals, gain experience and better opportunity to secure admission for post graduate course. The decision to grant incentive marks for rural service was the result of such serious thinking. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Snehelata patnaik vs. State of Orissa, 1992(2) SCC 26 , suggested the States to consider giving weightage up to a maximum of 5% in favour of in-service candidates who have done rural service for five years or more. 8. The State of Tamil Nadu has been the pioneer in identifying the rural, hilly and difficult areas and giving incentive for service in the primary health centres and hospitals in such areas. 8. The State of Tamil Nadu has been the pioneer in identifying the rural, hilly and difficult areas and giving incentive for service in the primary health centres and hospitals in such areas. The State Government from time to time took policy decisions to award weightage marks as an incentive for rural practice, so as to encourage the medical professionals to join the posts and thereafter to secure admission in Post Graduate Course by making use of the weightage marks. 9. The Government of Tamil Nadu has been issuing orders giving incentive marks every year since 1992. Subsequently, in the year 2007, the Government has issued a comprehensive order in G.O.Ms.No.456 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 19 December 2007, indicating the Government Policy for admission to Post Graduate Medical and Allied Courses. As per the Government Order, merit list would be drawn for a total mark of 100 by computing the entrance examination marks viz., 90 marks and adding 10 marks for experience. The Government Order shows that Two marks for each year of Government service in hilly areas to a maximum of five years, restricting to a total of 10 marks would be given to encourage service in hilly areas. 10. The Government as per the order in G.O.Ms.No.332 dated 24 December 2010, provided for awarding 2 marks for each year of Government service to the Doctors, who works in the Government Hospitals, Government Primary Health Centres and Government Medical Centres at Nagapattinam, Tiruvarur and Ramanathapuram District, subject to a maximum of 10 marks. 11. The Director of Medical Education appears to have recommended to the State Government to take a decision for awarding two marks in each year of Government service to the doctors who work in the newly started medical colleges, during its initial years of establishment in order to improve the faculty strength and motivate the doctors working in the newly established colleges, except the medical college at Chennai. 12. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Services, Government of India, vide letter dated 8 December 2014, requested the State Government to identify, demarcate and notify areas into urban, rural, difficult and remote in the State of Tamil Nadu, to provide better health care facilities. 13. 12. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Services, Government of India, vide letter dated 8 December 2014, requested the State Government to identify, demarcate and notify areas into urban, rural, difficult and remote in the State of Tamil Nadu, to provide better health care facilities. 13. The Government of Tamil Nadu taking into account the need to provide incentive to doctors, opting for rural service and in response to the request made by the Government of India, issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.29, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 8 February 2017, notifying the rural, hilly, remote and difficult areas for awarding bonus marks to service candidates. 14. In the meantime, Medical Council of India issued a notification amending Clause 9 of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 2000. The MCI added a proviso to Sub Clause IV of Clause 9, and issued the notification dated 15 February 2012. It reads thus:- Provided that in determining the merit of candidates who are in-service of Government/public authority, weightage in the marks may be given by the Government/Competent Authority as an incentive at the rate of 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service in remote and /or difficult areas up to the maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in National Eligibility cum Entrance Test. The remote and difficult areas shall be as defined by State Government/Competent Authority from time to time. 15. It is the admitted case of the parties that even after the introduction of the proviso to sub clause IV of Clause 9, incentive marks were given to the in service candidates in the State of Tamil Nadu in accordance with the earlier Government Orders and the last Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.332 dated 24 December 2010. The system worked very well without any complaint from the applicants for admission to the Post Graduate courses. The First Issue - Maintainability of Writ Petition 16. There was no challenge to the method adopted by the State Government for giving weightage by incentive marks for remote and difficult area service. The Government Policy is reflected in the prospectus issued by the Directorate of Medical Education. The first respondent in W.A.No.498/2017 filed only a writ of mandamus to direct the Selection Committee to award him marks in accordance with the Post Graduate Admission Regulation 2000 issued by MCI. The Government Policy is reflected in the prospectus issued by the Directorate of Medical Education. The first respondent in W.A.No.498/2017 filed only a writ of mandamus to direct the Selection Committee to award him marks in accordance with the Post Graduate Admission Regulation 2000 issued by MCI. The first respondent, who filed the writ petition was well aware that there was a method evolved by the State for awarding weightage marks which was in operation all these years and the same was reflected in the Prospectus for 2017-18 also. He failed to challenge the vires of the State Regulation prescribing a method different from the method prescribed by MCI, for awarding incentive marks. The Selection Committee constituted by the Government is only an implementing agency of the policy adopted by the State. There was no legal right to the first respondent in W.A.No.498/2017 to direct the Selection Committee to award marks in accordance with MCI Regulations without challenging the method adopted by the State. Similarly, there was no corresponding duty on the part of the Selection Committee to follow the method suggested by MCI in view of the method adopted by the State. The mandatory condition for issuing a writ of Mandamus, was not satisfied by the first respondent in the writ appeal in W.A.No.498 of 2017. This fundamental defect was not taken note of by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge without there being a challenge to the method evolved by the State by adopting a policy, issued a mandamus to the Selection Committee to follow the method prescribed under the MCI Regulations. It is a matter of record that even while issuing the writ to award marks as per MCI Norms, the learned single Judge has not quashed the State norms for awarding incentive marks. We are therefore of the view that the learned single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition filed for a Writ of Mandamus without there being a challenge to the policy adopted by the State and indicated in the prospectus. The first issue is therefore decided against the first respondent in the intra court appeals. 17. We are therefore of the view that the learned single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition filed for a Writ of Mandamus without there being a challenge to the policy adopted by the State and indicated in the prospectus. The first issue is therefore decided against the first respondent in the intra court appeals. 17. Even after holding that the writ petition filed by the first respondent in W.A.No.498 of 2017 is legally not maintainable, we are constrained to deal with the merits of the matter in view of the cut-off date prescribed for completing the admission process and to give a quietus to the issue raised in the matter. Second issue :- Whether State Regulation is violative of MCI Norms:- 18. The Director of Medical Education, issued the prospectus for the year 2017-18, indicating the methodology for the award of incentive marks for in-service candidates. The prospectus was in the same line, as issued in all these years. 19. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on the judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, 2016(9) SCC 749 , and issued a Writ of Mandamus. 20. (a) In Dinesh Singh Chauhan, two issues were raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The first issue was regarding the authority of the State to frame rules or to issue executive order to provide for reservation in Post Graduate Degree courses, contrary to the statutory regulation framed by the MCI. The other issue was whether the proviso to sub clause IV of Clause 9 would operate as a reservation in favour of in-service candidates. (b) The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that providing 30% representation to in-service candidates in Post Graduate Degree Course is not permissible (c) The third proviso inserted to the Regulation 9(iv) which envisages that in determining the merit, weightage may be given at 10% marks obtained for each year in service in remote or difficult areas, up to the maximum of 30% marks obtained in the common examination by the candidates was upheld. The Supreme Court observed that the said regulation does not envisage reservation of seats for the post graduate courses, unlike the express provision, which is made in the same regulation to provide reservation of seats for in-service candidates in “Diploma Course”. 21. The Supreme Court observed that the said regulation does not envisage reservation of seats for the post graduate courses, unlike the express provision, which is made in the same regulation to provide reservation of seats for in-service candidates in “Diploma Course”. 21. The issue raised before us regarding the methodology adopted by the State in the matter of awarding incentive marks was not an issue in Dinesh Singh Chauhan. 22. Since the methodology adopted by the State for giving weightage in the form of incentive marks vis-a-viz the proviso to sub Clause IV of Clasue 9 was not an issue earlier, we are inclined to consider as to whether the method prescribed by the State would run counter to the norms evolved by the Medical Council of India. 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others vs. State of Madhya Pradsh and ors., 2016 (7) SCC 353 , considered the scope of State legislation to deal with the subject of admission in professional educational institutions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on a comparison of list I entry 66 and List III Entry 25, observed that State legislatures are given powers in other facets of education including medical education, notwithstanding the power given to the Central Government under List I, Entry 66 to lay down a uniform method of minimum standards of education for the nation. The Supreme Court further observed that field covered by List III Entry 25 is wide enough and as circumscribed to the limited extent of it being subject to List I, entries 63, 64, 65 and 66. 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Adhiyaman Educational and Search Institute 1995(4) SCC 104 , held that, “whether the State law encroaches upon Entry 66 of the Union List or is repugnant to the law made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, will have to be determined by the examination of the two laws and will depend upon the facts of each case. 25. There is no dispute that norms of admission have a bearing on the standard of education. This was indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Srivatsava vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, ( 1999(7) SCC 120 ). 25. There is no dispute that norms of admission have a bearing on the standard of education. This was indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Srivatsava vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, ( 1999(7) SCC 120 ). Therefore, the question is whether the method evolved by the State would amount to lowering the set of norms laid down by the Medical Council of India. 26. In Modern School (supra), Banumathi, J., in her Lordship's concurring judgment, made it clear that scope of Entry 66 must be construed limited to its actual sense of it “determining the standards of higher education” and not laying down admission process. (emphasis supplied). It was further observed that in no case is the State denuded of its power to legislate under List III Entry 25 and more so, pertaining to the admission process in universities imparting higher education. The following observation indicates the beneficial role to be played by the State in the process of admission. “I have no hesitation in upholding the vires of the impugned legislation which empowers the state government to regulate admission process in institutions imparting higher education within the state. In fact, the State being responsible for welfare and development of the people of the State, ought to take necessary steps for welfare of its student community. The field of ‘higher education’ being one such field which directly affects the growth and development of the state, it becomes prerogative of the State to take such steps which further the welfare of the people and in particular pursuing higher education. In fact, the State Government should be the sole entity to lay down the procedure for admission and fee etc. governing the institutions running in that particular state except the centrally funded institutions like IIT, NIT etc. because no one can be a better judge of the requirements and inequalities-in-opportunity of the people of a particular state than that state itself. Only the State legislation can create equal level playing field for the students who are coming out from the State Board and other streams.” 27. The Post Graduate Medical Regulation 2000 provides for reservation of seats in medical colleges for reserved categories as per the applicable laws prevailing in the States or Union Territories. Only the State legislation can create equal level playing field for the students who are coming out from the State Board and other streams.” 27. The Post Graduate Medical Regulation 2000 provides for reservation of seats in medical colleges for reserved categories as per the applicable laws prevailing in the States or Union Territories. This reservation as observed by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan is obviously with reference to reservation as per the constitutional scheme for the Scheduled caste and Schedule tribe or other backward class communities. The Proviso appended by amendment in 2012, after Clause 9 (iv) is to identify the remote and difficult area for giving weightage as an incentive. The State is given the task of locating and notifying the remote and difficult areas for giving incentive marks for admission to Post Graduate Courses. 28. The Proviso was inserted by MCI by Notification dated 15 February, 2012. Thereafter, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India by letter dated 10 March, 2015 made a request to the State of Tamil Nadu to identify and notify areas into Urban, Rural, difficult and remote in the State. Accordingly, the Government identified areas and published a notification. 29. The Central Government adopted measures to make up the extreme shortage of qualified and skilled Doctors for health care in rural areas. The award of incentive marks at the rate of 10% each year in service in remote and difficult areas upto the maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in the NEET was the method introduced by MCI to address the issue. The State of Tamilnadu on the other hand has been giving weightage in the form of incentive marks by adopting another method for the past more than 25 years. The State of Tamilnadu and State of Odisha, were instrumental in introducing such incentive scheme in larger public interest. There was a reference about this in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyabrata Sahoo v. State of Orissa (supra). 30. The State Government evolved a method for the grant of incentive marks for Post Graduate admission by drawing a merit list for a total marks of 100, by computing the NEET PG 2017 marks and 10 marks for experience. The NEET marks and experience marks would be taken in the ratio of 90 : 10. 31. 30. The State Government evolved a method for the grant of incentive marks for Post Graduate admission by drawing a merit list for a total marks of 100, by computing the NEET PG 2017 marks and 10 marks for experience. The NEET marks and experience marks would be taken in the ratio of 90 : 10. 31. It was only to award incentive marks for all the Doctors who have served in notified areas and to give weightage to their experience, the State prescribed the method by allotting 10% marks maximum by way of service incentive. In case the NEET mark alone is taken as the basis to award weightage by giving incentive marks, such method would not reckon the services rendered for the common public good. The Government order fixing the norms for awarding incentive marks should be tested on the touchstone of remote and difficult area service. 32. The method indicated in the proviso to Sub-Clause (iv) of Clause 9 relates to remote and or difficult areas. The State is empowered by the MCI to define the remote and difficult areas. The State Regulation gives benefits to the Doctors working in urban, hilly and some of the newly started medical colleges in backward areas. The MCI Regulation would benefit only those who secured more marks in NEET as their marks would be shooted by 30%. To illustrate this, the first respondent in W.A.No.498 of 2017 who was the petitioner in W.P.No.6031 of 2017 completed three years of rural service. He secured 874.5825/1500 in NEET. He is entitled as per MCI Regulation 30% incentive marks. His marks therefore would be 1136.95725/1500. However, that would not be the case of another candidate who is posted in a very remote area with little resources and a difficult environment for making preparation for NEET. The benefit should not be denied on account of service in an area, where there are no facilities for studies after completing the treatment of poor people. There are committed medical graduates now, who are willing to serve the poor residing in remote and difficult areas without even the luxury of electricity. Such Doctors should also be encouraged to take Post Graduation, as they would come back to our villages and difficult/remote areas for service to the poor and downtrodden. There are committed medical graduates now, who are willing to serve the poor residing in remote and difficult areas without even the luxury of electricity. Such Doctors should also be encouraged to take Post Graduation, as they would come back to our villages and difficult/remote areas for service to the poor and downtrodden. The award of incentive marks for experience by serving the difficult and remote areas would serve larger public interest. 33. While considering the Regulation awarding weightage by incentive marks the object sought to be achieved must also be taken note of. The intention in giving incentive marks for remote and difficult area service is to encourage those who have opted to serve poor, living in such areas. 34. Both the MCI Regulations and the method prescribed by the State aimed to give incentive to the Doctors who have opted to serve the remote and difficult areas for admission to Post Graduate Courses. The State norms evolved for giving weightage for practical experience in notified remote and difficult areas would not prejudicially affect the coordination or determination of standards prescribed by MCI. 35. The State taking into account remote regions and difficult areas, provided incentives to Doctors to serve the poor people in such areas. Similarly, the attempt of MCI by introducing the Proviso was also to encourage service in remote and difficult areas. The State norms does not envisage reservation of seats for PG Courses. It was only a weightage by giving incentive marks calculated by adopting a method. There was no violation of standards set by the MCI while giving weightage marks by the State. This time tested procedure recognizing service to the poor would not violate the norms prescribed by MCI. 36. The MCI Regulations provide for 30% of the NEET marks as weightage by way of incentive marks. The state norms restricts the weightage marks at 10%. There is no dilution of the standards set by MCI by taking 90% marks secured by the candidate in NEET and 10% for rural service, calculated in the manner indicated in the prospectus. These two regulations have to be construed harmoniously to achieve the common object of encouraging service in remote and difficult areas and to award incentive marks for such service. 37. These two regulations have to be construed harmoniously to achieve the common object of encouraging service in remote and difficult areas and to award incentive marks for such service. 37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil nadu v. Pradeep (2004) 4 SCC 513 indicated that Entry 25 of List III and Entry 66 of List I have to be read together and it cannot be read in such a manner as to form an exclusivity in the matter of admission. 38. We are informed by the learned Additional Advocate General that there is a condition prescribed by the State that after completion of their Post Graduation, those doctors have to serve the Government till superannuation. 39. The following observation made by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan is relevant here: “Indisputably, there is a wide gap between the demand for basic health care and commensurate medical facilities, because of the inertia amongst the young doctors to go to such areas. Thus, giving specified incentive marks (to eligible in-service candidates) is permissible differentiation whilst determining their merit. It is an objective method of determining their merit”. 40. The decision taken by the Medical Council of India and the State to award incentive marks was with a definite purpose to encourage remote and difficult area service. The benefit of such policy taken in larger public interest must go to all the Doctors, who have opted for such Service. The State has given an assurance that weightage marks would be given in case of taking rural practice. The Doctors, acting on such promise, agreed to practice in the notified areas with the hope that they would be in a position to secure admission for Post Graduate courses. Since the State has been following this system of awarding incentive marks for many years, the Doctors have no reason to think twice before opting rural service. These doctors have to serve the period prescribed by the State for service in remote and other areas for admission to the Pot Graduate course. The State continued to follow the Policy (adopted even before the introduction of the Proviso to Regulation 9(iv) to award incentive marks), notwithstanding the MCI Regulations providing for a different method of assessment of incentive marks. 41. The State continued to follow the Policy (adopted even before the introduction of the Proviso to Regulation 9(iv) to award incentive marks), notwithstanding the MCI Regulations providing for a different method of assessment of incentive marks. 41. The writ petitioner would be justified in his contention that the State Regulation is in conflict with the MCI Regulations, only in case the State is adopting a Policy of Reservation in favour of Doctors working in remote and difficult areas. The MCI and the State are committed to promote rural service. The method of awarding incentive marks alone is different. The State seeks to benefit all the Doctors, who have opted for difficult and remote area service. The intention of the MCI in framing the Regulation is also the same. The State clearly demonstrated that the method adopted all these years would benefit all the Doctors working in the notified areas and there would not be any kind of undue advantage to a section of Doctors. There is absolutely no conflict between the Central Regulation and the State Policy on account of different criteria followed for awarding incentive marks. The method evolved by the State would therefore meet the Equality Test under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The second issue is therefore answered by upholding the method adopted by the State. Reservation in favour of service candidates:- 42 (a) There was no challenge in W.P.No.6031 of 2017 to the prospectus issued by the admission committee constituted by the Government of Tamilnadu. The learned Senior Counsel for the MCI pointed out several clauses in the Prospectus to demonstrate that all those provisions would go counter to the norms prescribed by the MCI. According to the learned Senior Counsel award of one mark for each completed year after the completion of CRRI for experience, for both service and non-service candidates has no legal sanction. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the Government has provided 50% seats in each Specialty and each college for service candidates in addition to those serving candidates selected in the open category. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that such reservation is not permissible except for the Diploma Course. (b) There is no proper writ petition before us to consider the legality and correctness of the prospectus issued by the State of Tamil Nadu. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that such reservation is not permissible except for the Diploma Course. (b) There is no proper writ petition before us to consider the legality and correctness of the prospectus issued by the State of Tamil Nadu. The challenge before us is only to the method adopted by the State Government for awarding incentive marks. The question as to whether the State was correct in reserving 50% of the seats in each speciality and in each college for service candidates requires to be decided in an appropriate proceedings with opportunity to the parties to file counter affidavit. The validity of the prospectus was not at all in issue in W.P.No.6031 of 2017 in respect of which, the present writ appeals are filed. (c) The Court is not expected to travel beyond the scope of the Writ Petition. The Court should confine its decisions to the matter in issue. There is no challenge before us to the various clauses in the prospectus issued by the State. This Bench is constituted only to decide the intra court appeals preferred against the order in W.P.No.6031 of 2017 and W.P.No.6094 of 2017. In both the cases, the reservation in favour of in-service candidates or the award of one mark for each completed year after the completion of CRRI for experience for both the service and non service candidates were not raised by the parties. In fact, the Writ Petition in W.P.No.6094 of 2017 deals only with identification of remote areas. There was no adjudication on merits in the said Writ Petition, on account of subsequent events. In the Writ Petition in W.P.No.6031 of 2017, the learned Single Judge has not dealt with any other issues, as there was no challenge to the prospectus. It was a simple Writ Petition for Mandamus. Therefore, it is not permissible to expand the scope of the related appeals and test the validity of all the clauses in the prospectus. We are therefore of the view that there is no need to consider the legality and correctness of the prospectus fixing 50% each for the in-service candidates and the award of uniform marks for both service and non-service candidates for experience, in the present batch of intra court appeals. We are therefore of the view that there is no need to consider the legality and correctness of the prospectus fixing 50% each for the in-service candidates and the award of uniform marks for both service and non-service candidates for experience, in the present batch of intra court appeals. W.A.No.498/2017 :- 43 (a) The challenge in the writ petition in W.P.No.6094 of 2017, which is the subject matter in W.A.No.453 of 2017 is to the Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.29 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 8 February, 2017, adding additional areas for the purpose of awarding weightage marks. Before the Writ Court, the Secretary to Government, Health Department, filed an affidavit indicating that the Government has taken a decision to keep the said Government Order in abeyance. The learned Single Judge, therefore, disposed of the writ petition without considering the merits of the matter. Subsequently, the Government issued another order stating that the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 8 February, 2017 is kept in abeyance. (b) There is no challenge to the subsequent Government Order issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu keeping G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 8 February 2017 in abeyance. The learned single Judge was therefore perfectly correct in disposing of the writ petition in view of the decision taken by the Government not to implement the Government Order. We are therefore of the view that the appellant has not made out a case for interfering with the order passed by the learned single Judge. We therefore confirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6094 of 2017. Conclusion :- 44. In view of the reasons aforesaid, we hold that the methodology adopted by the State for giving weightage marks for in-service candidates is not in conflict with the method evolved by MCI. 45. In the absence of specific challenge, and 7 May 2017 being the cut off date prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for counselling, the questions regarding reservation for in-service candidates and award of incentive marks for experience for both the service and non service candidates are kept open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. 46. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17 April 2017 in W.P.No.6031 of 2017 is set aside. 46. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17 April 2017 in W.P.No.6031 of 2017 is set aside. We mould the relief by directing the Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education to consider the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.6031 of 2017 for awarding weightage marks in accordance with the method indicated in the prospectus for the year 2017-18. Disposition :- 47. The writ appeals in W.A.Nos.484/2017, 490/2017, 491/2017, 498/2017, 499/2017, 506/2017, 527/2017, 536 of 2017, 537 to 546 of 2017 are allowed as indicated above. The writ appeal in W.A.No.453 of 2017 is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.