Disposing of petitions, the bench noted that no Disposing of petitions, the bench noted that no"instance" has been brought before it to show that some areaswhich are not remote areas have been so notified by the stategovernment. The court rejected the contention that private medicalcolleges cannot be forced to grant admission to governmentdoctors, the beneficiaries of "incentive marks" under MCIregulations. "In our opinion, Regulation 9 per se makes no distinctionbetween Government and non-Government colleges for allocationof weightage of marks to in-service candidates. Instead, itmandates preparation of one merit list for the state on thebasis of results in NEET. "Further, regarding in-service candidates, all itprovides is that the candidate must have been in-service of aGovernment/Public Authority and served in remote and difficultareas notified by the State Government and the CompetentAuthority from time to time. The Authorities are, therefore,obliged to continue with the admission process strictly inconformity with Regulation 9. "The fact that most of the direct candidates who havesecured higher marks in the NEET than the in-servicecandidates, may not be in a position to get a subject orcollege of their choice, and are likely to secure a subject orcollege not acceptable to them, cannot be the basis toquestion the validity of proviso to Clause IV of Regulation,"it said. The bench said that "the inescapable conclusion" is thatthe procedure evolved under MCI Regulation is "just, properand reasonable" and also "fulfill the test of Article 14 ofthe Constitution, being in larger public interest." Earlier, the court had asked the state to "revise andredraw the merit list" of candidates as per the MCI regulationand give eligible candidates due "weightage as may be due tothem for rendering service in notified rural and/or difficultareas and to grant admission" on the basis of such redrawnmerit list. PTI SJK MNL RKSARC


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here