The Madras High Court has asked the State Government to seek a clarification from the Supreme Court regarding the applicability of the Tamil Nadu government notification earmarking 50% of seats in the Government medical colleges to in-service candidates for the academic year 2022-23.
Justice R Suresh Kumar said:
“It is open to the State Government as well as the petitioner herein to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court to seek for any clarification as to the continuation of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court during last year with regard to the conducting of counselling by the State of Tamil Nadu for filling up the 50% seats in Super Speciality courses available in Government Medical Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu for the academic year 2022-2023 also by following the import of G.O.Ms.No.462 dated 07.11.2020.”
In the meantime, the court gave liberty to the Centre to continue its process of counselling, provided that no final allocation is given to any candidate infringing the 50% reservation for in-service candidates in view of the Government Order.
“Since the matter is pending in the Supreme Court, you can easily file an IA and seek further clarification. In order to enable parties to approach the Supreme Court, 10 days time is granted. If in the meantime, the Centre wants to go ahead with the counselling, you can go ahead provided that no final allotment can be given to candidates infringing the 50% reservation for in-service candidates in view of the GO,” said the court.
The petitioners relied on the Government Order passed by the State of Tamil Nadu which stated that 50% of the Super Specialty seats (DM/M.Ch.) in Government Medical Colleges are allocated to in-service candidates of Tamil Nadu and the remaining 50% seats are allocated to the Government of India/ Director General of Health Services from the academic year 2020-2021.
The petitioners contended that even though the Madras High Court had allowed the State to conduct counselling as per the notification issued in 2020, on appeal, the Supreme Court in Dr.N.Karthikeyan and Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. allowed the Centre to continue its counselling process for the academic year 2020-21 as the process for admission to Super Specialty courses had already started without any reservation for in-service doctors. Thus, since the admission process was in its final stage, the Supreme Court had directed the competent authorities to continue the counselling as fixed.
Advocate G Sankaran appearing for the petitioners contended that the order of the Supreme Court was only with respect to the academic year 2020-21. The Supreme Court had clearly not expressed any opinion on the validity of the Government Order. He further submitted that the Supreme Court in its later orders had taken away this interim protection and directed the Director General of Health Services to conduct counselling for the academic year 2021-22 in respect of seats of State of Tamil Nadu by taking into consideration the reservation provided by it as per the G.O.
He further informed the court that the Director General of Health Services, wanted to continue counseling in all the 100% seats for the academic year 2022-23 and issued communications in this regard. The centre had also issued a schedule in this regard and as per the schedule, the choice of filling would start from 25.11.2022.
Dr D Simon, the Central Government Standing Council however contended that the Supreme Court order directing the DGHS to continue the counsellling as per the GO was only with respect to the academic year 2021-22 and the same could not mean that the order was applicable to the coming years also. It was submitted that the Supreme Court had clearly stated that DGHS shall conduct the counselling for academic year 2021-2022 in respect of seats of State of Tamil Nadu which clearly showed that the Supreme Court intended the order to be applicable only to that academic year.
Though Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram submitted that the Supreme Court meant the order to be applicable for the upcoming years also, the court found strength in the submission of the Central Government standing counsel.
“I (High Court) cannot assume the intention of the Supreme Court while making the order. I do not have such powers. It is better if we seek a clarification from the Supreme Court itself”, the bench observed.
Case Title: Dr. K Sri Hari Prashanth and another v The Government of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 473
Case No: WP 30666 of 2022
Source: https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMijAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5saXZlbGF3LmluL25ld3MtdXBkYXRlcy9tYWRyYXMtaGlnaC1jb3VydC01MC1yZXNlcnZhdGlvbi1mb3ItaW4tc2VydmljZS1jYW5kaWRhdGUtc3RhdGUtdG8tc2Vlay1jbGFyaWZpY2F0aW9uLWZyb20tdGhlLXNjLTIxNDc0NNIBAA?oc=5
