JUDGEMENT : Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Also heard Mr. David Lalrinpuia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 and Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 9. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the sponsoring of private respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 9 for Post Graduate (PG) studies at Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal, Manipur vide Communication dated 12.03.2020 (Annexure-6) and the Order dated 11.05.2020 (Annexure-7) by which they were selected the respondent No. 6 to undergo PG course. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 were appointed as Medical Officers on 29.05.2019 and posted at Phura Primary Health Centre (PHC), Chawngte Community Health Centre (CHC) and Kawnpui PHC respectively. Petitioner Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7 were appointed as Medical Officer on 23.07.2013 and were initially posted at Hnahlan PHC, Bungzung PHC, Cherhlun PHC and Vairengte PHC respectively. 4. On 05.01.2020, the petitioners along with private respondents, appeared for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for PG courses for 7 (seven) seats reserved for the State of Mizoram at RIMS. Vide Communication dated 12.03.2020 (Annexure-6), the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Health & Family Welfare Department sent the names of 6 (six) candidates including the 3 (three) private respondents to the respondent No. 5 as the sponsored in-service regular candidates. Pursuant thereto, vide the Order dated 11.05.2020 (Annexure-7), the respondent No. 6 published the list of selected candidates which included the 3 (three) private respondents besides one more candidate amongst the selected sponsored candidates from the State of Mizoram. Being aggrieved with the selection of the private respondents, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel submits that the private respondents are appointed as Demonstrators in the Mizoram Institute of Medical Education & Research (MIMER), which is now known as Zoram Medical College (ZMC) located at Falkawn, Mizoram and that they have never served in rural areas in Mizoram, so as to give preference in their favour and in violation of the Office Memorandum dated 24.02.2011 (Annexure-11). Referring to the said Office Memorandum, the learned counsel submits that with a view to avail maximum seats for PG studies at RIMS, the State Government in the Health & Family Welfare Department has laid down guidelines and criteria for selection of candidates for PG studies at RIMS. He submits that as per Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum, Category-I (A) comprises of regular in-service candidate with at least 2 years service in rural areas while Category-I (B) comprises of regular in-service candidate with at least not less than one year service in rural area. The private respondents are not in-service candidates and have not served in rural areas. Therefore, they are not eligible as per the Office Memorandum. The learned counsel further submits that the criteria laid down in the Office Memorandum was found to be the guidelines applicable and to be followed in respect of Government sponsorship in PG studies at RIMS in the meeting held on 18.03.2019 (Annexure-12) under the Chairmanship of the Minister, Health & Family Welfare Department. 6. The learned counsel also submits that the post of Demonstrator is not an en-cadred post under the Mizoram Health Service Rules, 2009 (Rules of 2009) (Annexure-13). The learned counsel submits that Rule 21 of the Rules of 2009 provides for training and further studies wherein it has been specifically provided that the sponsorship to undergo further studies, such as PG, Diploma, Degree or Post-doctoral studies are available to the members of the service and that the private respondents are appointed as Demonstrators under the ZMC which is registered as a society under the Mizoram Societies Registration Act, 2005. As such, the private respondents could not have been sponsored and selected for PG studies at RIMS. The learned counsel submits that the Office Memorandum dated 24.02.2011 and the Rules of 2009 are to be read harmoniously and by doing so, there cannot be any doubt that the private respondents do not satisfy the eligibility criteria. He submits that the State Government has the right to make reservation for admission to PG studies for in-service Doctors as a policy decision keeping in mind the larger interest of the public. However, the Office Memorandum dated 24.02.2011 and the Rules of 2009 have not been considered in the right perspective and as a result, the private respondents have been sponsored for PG studies at RIMS. However, the Office Memorandum dated 24.02.2011 and the Rules of 2009 have not been considered in the right perspective and as a result, the private respondents have been sponsored for PG studies at RIMS. Therefore, the sponsorship of the private respondents and their selection may be interfered with by this Court. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the Apex Court decision in WP(C) No. 196/2018 (Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors.) decided on 31.08.2020. 7. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, the learned Government Advocate, by relying upon the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on 01.12.2020 submits that when Office Memorandum dated 24.02.2011 was issued, ZMC was not yet established. It came into existence as a full fledged Institution, after permission was given by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, vide Communication dated 25.05.2018. Therefore, the employees appointed under the ZMC on regular basis are automatically considered as regular employees of the State Government. As such, the 3 (three) private respondents are considered to be automatically included in the Office Memorandum. She submits that as per the Letter dated 18.01.2020, the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Health & Family Welfare Department was informed to send a list of sponsored in-service regular candidates along with duly filled in application forms so as to reach RIMS on or before 13.03.2020. Accordingly, the list of sponsored in-service regular candidates were sent on 12.03.2020, which included the 3 (three) private respondents and the petitioner Nos. 5 & 7 apart from one Dr. Lalrinkimi Khiangte. However, the petitioner Nos. 5 & 7 were not selected when the results of the selection was published vide Order dated 11.05.2020. In fact, the petitioner No. 1 did not qualify along with 7 (seven) others in the first counseling. Later, when the qualifying marks was reduced from 40th percentile to 20th percentile, the respondent No. 5 was recommended for PG studies under the sponsorship category. Likewise, the names of petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 6 were also forwarded to the respondent No. 5 for PG studies under the sponsorship category. Accordingly, petitioner Nos. 4, 5 & 7 had been selected for PG course in the Department of Bio-chemistry, Ophthalmology and Physiology respectively, after the qualifying marks was reduced to 20th percentile. Likewise, the names of petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 6 were also forwarded to the respondent No. 5 for PG studies under the sponsorship category. Accordingly, petitioner Nos. 4, 5 & 7 had been selected for PG course in the Department of Bio-chemistry, Ophthalmology and Physiology respectively, after the qualifying marks was reduced to 20th percentile. Under the circumstance, the learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioners cannot be said to have legitimate grievance and particularly when petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 had not completed the prescribed 2 (two) years of probation period. 8. Mr. David Lalrinpuia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 submits that the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 have not filed an affidavit-in-opposition but their stand is to the effect that RIMS had made the selection from amongst the sponsored candidates in terms of the guidelines under the NEET and also RIMS. In other words, the selection was based on merit. He further submits that since the candidates, who according to the State respondents, were eligible were sponsored, the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 do not have any say in the matter. 9. Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, learned counsel for the private respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 9 submit that the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 do not have any locus standi to file the instant writ petition, inasmuch as, when the names of the sponsored candidates were being forwarded to RIMS, the said petitioners had not been regularized in-service. He submits that as for petitioner Nos. 4 & 5, they were admitted to the PG course at RIMS in Bio-chemistry and Ophthalmology subjects respectively. On 28.07.2020 while the petitioner No. 7 was also admitted for PG course in Physiology in the month of July 2020, they cannot have any grievance. He submits that initially the required cut off marks, as per the norms of NEET was 40th percentile and that the petitioners did not score the required marks. Later, vide Communication dated 14.07.2020, the minimum qualifying percentiles was lowered to 20th percentile. As such, the petitioner Nos. 4, 5 & 7 came to be selected for the PG course after the private respondents got selected vide Order dated 11.05.2020. In respect of the petitioner No. 6, although his name was sent along with the names of petitioner Nos. Later, vide Communication dated 14.07.2020, the minimum qualifying percentiles was lowered to 20th percentile. As such, the petitioner Nos. 4, 5 & 7 came to be selected for the PG course after the private respondents got selected vide Order dated 11.05.2020. In respect of the petitioner No. 6, although his name was sent along with the names of petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 4 to the respondent No. 5 by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Health & Family Welfare Department for consideration vide Communication dated 21.07.2020 but he was not recommended. The learned counsel also submits that the private respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 9 responded to the advertisement floated by the Mizoram Public Service Commission (MPSC) on 27.01.2018 for the post of Demonstrator (Regular) and after undergoing the process of selection, they were appointed to the post of Demonstrator (Regular). The respondent Nos. 7 & 8 were appointed vide Communication dated 21.03.2018 and the respondent No. 9 was appointed vide Communication dated 27.04.2018. He submits that the private respondents concerned have completed their probationary period and have obtained certificate of completion of mandatory induction/foundation training and their salaries are drawn from the office of the Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts & Treasuries, Govt. of Mizoram bearing Audit No. 436(MHS), 443 (MHS) & 449 (MHS) respectively. Under the circumstances, the learned counsel submits that there is no cause of action against the private respondents and the writ petition may be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 11. From the projection made by the writ petitioners, the issue to be consider is as to whether the private respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 9 having been appointed as Demonstrator under the ZMC could have been considered for selection to undergo PG studies in RIMS under the sponsorship category having regard to the Office Memorandum dated 24.02.2011 and the Rules of 2009. 12. In order to appreciate the above contentious issue, let us examine the Rules and Regulations of Post Graduate (MD/MS/Diploma) Admission in RIMS, Imphal – 2020 provided in the Information Bulletin of RIMS. 12. In order to appreciate the above contentious issue, let us examine the Rules and Regulations of Post Graduate (MD/MS/Diploma) Admission in RIMS, Imphal – 2020 provided in the Information Bulletin of RIMS. Sub-clause-1 of paragraph No. 1 provides that selection of candidates for admission to Post-graduate medical courses against sponsored category seats shall be applicable to the in-service (regular basis) medical graduates belonging to the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura. Paragraph No. 3(a) provides for the eligibility criteria for sponsored category. Paragraph No. 3(a): 1 provides as follows:- “Candidate must be an Indian national holding MBBS degree or equivalent from a Medical College/Institute recognized approved by Medical Council of India and has obtained permanent registration from MCI or any State Medical Council. In the nomination letter, any directive/option of subject preference mentioned against the names of candidate will not be entertained as the allotment of seats will be strictly done in order of merit of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-PG).” Further, paragraph No. 3(a): 2 further provides that “candidates working in the State Health Services on regular basis only will be considered. 13. From the above abstract, it may be seen that allotment of seats will be strictly done in order of merit of NEET and that the option given by the candidates for any particular subject will not be entertained. Besides this, the candidates should be working in State Health Services on regular basis. It may be seen that the respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 9 were sponsored as in-service regular candidates vide Communication dated 12.03.2020 of the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Health & Family Welfare Department addressed to the respondent No. 5 recommending them for PG studies at RIMS and during the relevant time, the minimum qualifying percentile was 40th percentile. Although the names of petitioner Nos. 5 & 7 were also forwarded along with the private respondents, they were not selected. Later, when the minimum qualifying percentiles was reduced from 40th percentile to 20th percentile vide Communication dated 14.07.2020 of the National Board of Examination, New Delhi, the petitioner Nos. 4, 5 & 7 came to be selected for PG studies in RIMS. Therefore, as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by RIMS, the private respondent Nos. Later, when the minimum qualifying percentiles was reduced from 40th percentile to 20th percentile vide Communication dated 14.07.2020 of the National Board of Examination, New Delhi, the petitioner Nos. 4, 5 & 7 came to be selected for PG studies in RIMS. Therefore, as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by RIMS, the private respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 9 were found to be qualified on the basis of the merit in the NEET and as such, the contention of the petitioners that they were hardly left with any choice of subject because of the selection made in favour of the private respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 9 cannot be accepted. 14. In respect of the private respondents not being in the zone of consideration, it may be noticed that the first Medical College in the State of Mizoram (ZMC) was established on 07.08.2018 under the name MIMER. It was established under the centrally sponsored scheme with the State Government contributing a matching share. The private respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 9 were selected and appointed against the regular post of Demonstrator under the ZMC and therefore, they can be very well considered to be candidates working in the State Health Services on regular basis as prescribed by the Rules and Regulations of PG studies published in the Information Bulletin of RIMS. 15. The Rules of 2009 provides for training and further studies for members of the service. The private respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 9 no doubt are not members of the service, inasmuch as, they have not been appointed under the said Rules or under the pre-existing Mizoram Health Services Rules, 1997. But the fact remains that the Govt. of Mizoram in the Health & Family Welfare Department have formulated guidelines and criteria for selection of candidates for PG studies at RIMS and in which regular in-service candidates with at least 2 (two) years of service in rural areas have been placed at Category-I (A) while those who have served not less than 1 (one) year have been placed in Category-1(B). The admitted position is that Falkawn which is where the ZMC is located is not within the Aizawl Municipal area and for that reason, if the services of the private respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 9 have been considered as services rendered in rural area, the same cannot be said to be unjustified. The admitted position is that Falkawn which is where the ZMC is located is not within the Aizawl Municipal area and for that reason, if the services of the private respondent Nos. 7, 8 & 9 have been considered as services rendered in rural area, the same cannot be said to be unjustified. The private respondents may not have been appointed under the Rules of 2009 but the fact remains that they are regular in-service Demonstrators, working in ZMC which is established by the Govt. of Mizoram in the Health & Family Welfare Department and having a matching share in running the Institution. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the term “members of the service” or “in-service candidates” cannot be given a narrow interpretation to include only those persons, who are appointed under the Rules of 2009 or the pre-existing Rules. 16. In the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), the question before the Apex Court (Full Bench) was whether there was any bar in the Post-graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 on individual states in providing for reservation of in-service Doctors for admission into post Graduate Medical Degree Courses. The Apex Court answered the question in negative and further held that in order to take the benefit of such separate entry channel, the aspiring in-service Doctors must clear the NEET examination with the minimum prescribed marks as stipulated in the 2000 Regulations. Applying the ratio to the present case, it only appears that the separate entry channel provided to in-service regular medical graduates vide O.M dated 24.02.2011 and by the Rules of 2009 in absence of any challenge or otherwise will be applicable to those covered by the said provision. 17. Thus, considering the mode of appointment of the private respondents, their educational qualification and their place of appointment, this Court is of the considered view that their sponsorship and selection for PG studies in RIMS is sustainable. Even by seeing the selection from the angle of public interest, ZMC undisputedly has been established to cater the needs and requirements of the State of Mizoram in the field of Medical Science and that if the Teachers working in ZMC are given opportunity to undergo in-service training, the same will naturally be in public interest. Even by seeing the selection from the angle of public interest, ZMC undisputedly has been established to cater the needs and requirements of the State of Mizoram in the field of Medical Science and that if the Teachers working in ZMC are given opportunity to undergo in-service training, the same will naturally be in public interest. It is stated at the bar that the private respondents and also the petitioner Nos. 4, 5 & 7 have already got themselves admitted and are in the process of preparing themselves for their first semester examination. Therefore, the same in the opinion of this Court is all the more reason, not to recall those who have been selected and undergoing P.G courses in RIMS. 18. In view of above and under the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioners cannot be said to have a legitimate grievance requiring the interference of this Court. As such, the writ petition is found to be without merit and the same is dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands merged with this order. No costs.