Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
DR. SNEHELATA PATNAIK AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT22/01/1992
BENCH:
KANIA, M.H. (CJ)
BENCH:
KANIA, M.H. (CJ)
THOMMEN, T.K. (J)
SAWANT, P.B.
CITATION:
1992 SCR (1) 335 1992 SCC (2) 26
JT 1992 (1) 305 1992 SCALE (1)126
ACT:
Education-Admission to post-graduation courses in
Medical Sciences-Non-availability of qualified doctors for
rural service-Suggestions of Supreme Court for eradication.
HEADNOTE:
The writ petition and the SLPs were dismissed by this
Court’s order dated 5.12.1991.
Taking judicial notice of the fact that the rural areas
had suffered for non-availability of qualified doctors, this
Court suggested that some preference might have to be given
to in-service candidates who have done five years of rural
service.
HELD: 1.01. The authorities might well consider giving
weightage upto a maximum of 5 per cent of marks in favour of
in-service candidates who have done rural service for five
years or more. The actual percentage would certainly have
to be left to the authorities. [327 B]
1.02. This might act as an incentive to doctors who had
done their graduation to do rural service for some time.
[326 E]
1.03. The observation in Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Others v.
Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and others, [1986]
3 SCC page 727 at 740 to the effect that no weightage should
be given to the candidate for rural service rendered by him
so far as admissions to post-graduate courses are concerned
is not the ratio of the judgment but a mere observation.
[336 H-337 A]
1.04. The suggestions do not in any way confer any
legal right on in-service students who have done rural
service nor do they have any application to the selection of
the students upto the end of the year. [337 B]
Dr Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Motilal Nehru Medical
College, Allahabad & Ors., [1986] 3 SCC 727 at page 740,
distinguished.
JUDGMENT:
336
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition NO. 844 OF 1991.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
WITH
S.L.P.NOS. 16475 & 17635 of 1991.
N.S. Hegde, Amrendra Bal and J.R. Das for the
Petitioners.
Soresh Roy, Ms. Kirti Mishra and P.N. Mishra for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KANIA, CJ. We have already dismissed the writ petition
and special leave petitions by our order dated 5.12.1991. We
would, however, like to make a suggestion to the authorities
for their consideration that some preference might be given
to in-service candidates who have done five years of rural
service. In the first place, it is possible that the
facilities for keeping up with the latest medical literature
might not be available to such in-service candidates and the
nature of their work makes it difficult for them to acquire
knowledge about very recent medical research which the
candidates who have come after freshly passing their
graduation examination might have. Moreover, it might act
as an incentive to doctors who had done their graduation to
do rural service for some time. Keeping in mind the fact
that the rural areas had suffered grievously for non-
availability of qualified doctors giving such incentive
would be quite in order. Learned counsel for the
respondents has, however, drawn out attention to the
decision of a Division Bench of two learned judges of this
Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Motilal Nehru Medical
College, Allahabad & Ors., [1986] 3 SCC page 727 at 740. It
has been observed there that merely by offering a weightage
of 15 per cent to a doctor for three years rural service
would not bring about a migration of doctors from the urban
to rural areas. They observed that it you want to produce
doctors who are MD or MS, particularly surgeons, who are
going to operate upon human beings, it is of utmost
importance that the selection should be based on merit.
Learned Judges have gone on to observe that no weightage
should be given to a candidate for rural service rendered by
him so far as admissions to post-graduate courses are
concerned (see para 12 at pate 741).
In our opinion, this observation certainly does not
constitute the ratio of the decision. The decision is in no
way dependent upon these
337
observations. Moreover, those observations are in
connection with All India Selection and do not have equal
force when applied to selection from a single State. These
observations, however, suggest that the weightage to be
given must be the bare minimum required to meet the
situation. In these circumstances, we are of the view that
the authorities might well consider giving weightage upto a
maximum of 5 per cent of marks in favour of in-service
candidates who have done rural service for five years or
more. The actual percentage would certainly have to be left
to the authorities. We also clarify that these suggestions
do not in any way confer any legal right on in-service
students who have done rural service nor do the suggestions
have any application to the selection of the students upto
the end of this year.
V.P.R Petitions disposed of
338