Summary
The High Court wrongly disturbed AMU/BHU institutional preference beyond the pleaded dispute and restricted remote-area service weightage to Uttar Pradesh medical graduates. All eligible PMHS doctors belonged to one service regardless of where they graduated. Prior admissions were protected and the specified institutions received a limited extension to fill vacancies.
Issues
- Whether AMU/BHU admission arrangements could be disturbed in the unpleaded dispute without affected parties.
- Whether PMHS service weightage depended on obtaining the qualifying degree within Uttar Pradesh.
Provisions considered
- Regulation 9(iv), proviso, Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000Eligible remote/difficult-area service attracted the prescribed incentive without a distinction based on the State of graduation. (¶¶ 8–9, 13–16)
Held
- The High Court exceeded the writ petition’s scope by disturbing institutional preference without the universities, selected candidates, MCI or Union as parties. Central university admissions could not be controlled by the State, and permissible institutional preference was supported by precedent. (¶ 11–12)
- Once doctors joined PMHS, they formed one service. Regulation 9(iv) and the State policy did not distinguish eligible remote-area service by where the doctors obtained their MBBS qualification. (¶ 13–16)
- The erroneous late intervention disrupted counselling. Admissions granted before the impugned judgment were protected, and a limited extension addressed resulting vacancies. (¶ 17–21)
Result
High Court judgment and consequential action set aside; prior admissions continued and AMU, BHU and Uttar Pradesh government medical institutions could fill postgraduate vacancies until June 12, 2017. Appeals and related applications disposed of.