PG admission row: Madras High Court comes up with a split verdict

Initially, a common judgement delivered by the division bench comprising Justice KK Sasidharan and Justice SM Subramaniam concluded that, “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 Medical Council of India (MCI).”

But subsequently, Justice SM Subramaniam came up with another judgement quashing some of the clauses in the prospectus issued by the government of Tamil Nadu as inconsistent and repugnant to the Post Graduate Medical Regulation, 2000 issued by MCI. 

Based on this, he directed the Tamil Nadu government to formulate the procedure for admission process in accordance with 9 and 9(IV) issued by MCI.

The 9 and 9 (IV) of the MCI Regulations provides only for reservation of seats as per the Constitutional scheme (for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes or other backward class candidates) and not for in-service candidates or medical officers in service. This provision also contains a proviso providing for weightage in marks for candidates as an incentive at the rate of 10 per cent per year spent in rural service and capped at a total of 30 per cent. 

However, the common judgement penned by Justice KK Sasidharan on quashing the single judge’s order said, “MCI and the state are committed to promote rural service. 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.” 

Now that there remains no unanimity in the views between the judges, the matter is set to be placed before the chief justice for appropriate orders. 

Justice M Sathyanarayanan has been appointed as the third judge and is likely decide the case on Thursday.