Madras High court has reserved orders in a batch of Writ Petitions filed by Dr Parkaviyan R. and others challenging the GO (D) No. 1108 dated 04.10.2021 which approves clause 29(c. —–Mr Ravindran State AAG submitted that Inservice candidates have got less seats in open quota for l – –Mr P. Wilson Senior Advocate appearing for Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association submitted that weightage marks. —நீதிபதி தண்டபானி order reserved-

I
The Madras High court has reserved orders in a batch of Writ Petitions filed by Dr Parkaviyan R. and others challenging the GO (D) No. 1108 dated 04.10.2021 which approves clause 29(c) of the prospectus for admission to post graduate/diploma courses in Tamil Madu Medical Colleges and Government seats in Self-financing Medical Colleges affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University for 2021-2022 session.
This year TN government has allowed the service candidates to compete not only in exclusive in service quota but also in open quota by virtue of Clause 29(c) of PG Prospectus.
Mr Suhirit Parthasarathy appearing for Writ Petitioner Doctors in batch of cases submitted that inservice candidates have a separate 50% quota in PG medical admissions and they cannot be allowed to compete in rest of 50% open quota with the weightage marks obtained due to their work in government hospitals located at hilly, difficult, rural areas. He submitted that such incentive marks obtained by Service doctors will have edge over the private Doctors candidates in PG Admissions and clause 29(c) of prospectus is illegal and is against Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore prayed to quash clause 29(c) of the Prospectus.
Mr P. Wilson Senior Advocate appearing for Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association submitted that weightage marks given to the inservice candidate for their dedicated work at hilly areas, difficult areas, rural areas is considered to be determining the merit of inservice candidates. He said that an Inservice doctor who serve in hilly areas ,remote areas, difficult and rural areas due to his dedicated work to safe gaurd public health compromises his preparations to exams and doesn’t concentrate in academic studies and therefore the MCI regulations has added these marks obtained for his service to people in to his merit which has to be computed along with NEET marks. Such marks cannot be kept away while considering for PG admissions as it would be against MCI PG Regulations 9(4) proviso.
He submitted that power to do admissions and prescribe mode of admissions, source of admissions is with the State’s domain flowing from List III entry 25 and this has been approved by Hon’ble Supremecourt in TN Medical officers association case and Modern Dental college case. He said many inservice doctors were reluctant to serve in hilly , difficult,remote and rural areas and to encourage them and to support primary health centers and to serve the people such incentive marks are given to attract the Doctors to work there and simultaneously help them in pursuing their carrier and such grant of weightage marks has been lauded by Supremecourt.
He said TN has been doing for many years and it’s states first concept of inservice allocation of seats in the year 1999 was approved by Hon’ble Supremecourt in the year 2001 and recently by constitutional bench in TN Medical officers association case in the year 2021.He submitted that state has constitutional obligation under Art 47 to give to its people dedicated health care. Expert doctors who are in the services are required to perform such onerous task in health sectors run by the State Government and government retains them till their retirement . He said during COVID 19 doctors have been a pillar and support to the state and serving the people during difficult times and difficult remote hilly rural areas hence non computation of weightage marks obtained due to rendering service in such hilly, rural and difficult areas would amount to doing injustice to them and amount to doing violence to clause 9(4) proviso of MCI PG 2000 regulations.
He submitted that allowing in service candidates in open quota is nothing new up to 2016 and since in 2016, the Supremecourt in Dinesh’s Singh Chauhan case held that states have no power to deal with admissions which was subsequently reversed by constitution bench in 2021,therefore state has now restored such two modes of admissions. He prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

Mr Ravindran State AAG submitted that Inservice candidates have got less seats in open quota for last 5 years and that the weightage marks are allotted not to all inservice candidates but only to service Doctors who work in areas as specified by Justice A Selvam committee ranging from 10 to zero marks and prayed for dismissal of Writ Petition. AAG submitted that Doctors leave their family behind and do their service and should be compensated with these weightage marks.
Hon’ble Mr Justice M Dhandapani after hearing marathon arguments yesterday reserved for orders.

N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.M.P. No. Of 2021
In
W.P. No. 25749 of 2021

1. Dr. J. Ragav
No. 8/12 Murugapillai Nagar Main
Street, Kumananchavadi, Poonamallee,
Chennai 600 056

2. Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association
25,MRJ Complex, Thirukkanurpatti,
Nalroad, Vallam Main Road,
Thanjavur-613 303.
…Petitioners/Proposed Respondents
Vs
1. Dr. Parkaviyan R.
S/o J. Rajendran
E1/NA, MuruganKoil Street,
Sethiyathope (PO), Cuddalore District 608 702
…Petitioners/Respondent

2. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Health and Family (MCA-1) Department
Fort St. George Chennai 600 009

3. The Director of Medical Education
Directorate of Medical Education,
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010

4. The Additional Director of Medical Education
Directorate of Medical Education,
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010

5. The Selection Committee
Represented by its Secretary
Directorate of Medical Education
162, Periyar EVR High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010

6. National Medical Commission
Represented by its Secretary
Pocket 14, Section – 8, Dwarka Phase –I
New Delhi 110 077
…Respondents/Respondents

AFFIDAVIT OF DR. J RAGAV
I, Dr J. Ragav S/o Jagadeesh Kumar Raj aged about 31 years residing at No. 8/12 Murugapillai Nagar Main Street, Kumananchavadi, Poonamallee, Chennai 600 056, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:
1. I state that I have completed my M.B.B.S course and put in 6 years of service as a Government doctor and I have appeared in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for the year 2021-22 and I am the 1st petitioner in the above impleading petition and as such I am competent to swear the present affidavit. The 2nd Impleading petitioner is the Tamil Nadu Medical Officers association and I am filing this affidavit on their behalf also, having been authorised to do so.
2. I state that I have been practising as a government doctor in Government Primary Health Centre Perambakkam, Kadambathur block, Thiruvallur HOD from 25.03.2015 to 31.05.2017 and thereafter at Government Primary Health Centre Paparambakkam Kadambathur block, Thiruvallur HOD from 01.06.2017 till date and in order to pursue my post graduate education, I appeared in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for the year 2021-22 and secured 377 marks. I humbly submit that I have put in 6 years of service in the abovementioned places which falls under the rural area and accordingly I am entitled to 5 percent of incentive marks per year of service as per G.O. (Ms) No.86 dated 06.03.2019 by Health and Family Welfare (MCA-1) Department.
3. I humbly submit that the present writ petition seeks to reopen and re-adjudicate an issue which has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and ors. Vs Union of India and ors. reported in 2021 (6) SCC 568. I humbly submit that it has been repeatedly held that it is imperative to give incentive marks to doctors working in the notified remote/rural/difficult areas over a period of time and the same will motivate young doctors to serve in the rural and remote areas, keeping in mind that these rural and remote areas have suffered grievously for non-availability of qualified medical professionals. I humbly submit that such incentives are given in larger public interest and therefore it is rational and reasonable. I further submit that the legislative competence of the State to provide a separate source of entry for in-service candidates has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgement cited supra. Therefore the present writ petition is frivolous and is a covered case. The present writ petition is hit by res judicata and therefore deserves to be dismissed in limine. I state that as per Article 141, once a position of law is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same is binding upon all Courts within the territory of India and hence the present Writ Petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
4. I further submit that the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash GO (D) No.1108 dated 04.10.2021 which approves the prospectus. However, the Petitioners have not challenged the government orders which brought in the 50% reservation for the in-service candidates and the applicability of the incentive marks for in-service candidates, and therefore in the absence of the challenge to the relevant government orders which granted the 50% reservation i.e. G.O. Ms No. 463 dated 07.11.2020, the prayer in the writ petition itself is not maintainable and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I further submit that a large number of in-service doctors who have applied for Post Graduate courses will be gravely prejudiced by any decision of this Hon’ble Court and the Writ Petitioner has not filed a petition under Rule 2A of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to designate a Respondent in a representative capacity to contest the case on behalf of all these affected doctors and therefore on this ground also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Without prejudice to the above challenge to the maintainability of the writ petition itself, I crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to place a few relevant facts, figures and submissions before this Hon’ble Court which are relevant for the proper adjudication of the present case. I submit that the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash GO (D) No. 1108 dated 04.10.2021 S.No. 29(c) of the prospectus for admission to post graduate/diploma courses in Tamil Madu Medical Colleges and Government seats in Self-financing Medical Colleges affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University 2021-2022 session. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the 50% reservation to in-service candidates on the ground that it dilutes merit and that the same is unreasonable since no proper study or analysis was conducted. I humbly submit that such a stand cannot be countenanced in law or in facts and runs contrary to the relevant rules and regulations and also the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Case cited supra.It is pertinent to mentioned that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 145 held that the State has the legislative competence to provide a separate channel for in-service candidates and the said para is extracted hereunder:
“5) that Regulation 9 of MCI Regulations, 2000 does not deal with and /or make provisions for reservation and/or effect the legislative competence and authority of the concerned States to make reservation and/or make special provision like the provision providing for a separate source of entry for in-service candidates seeking admission to postgraduate degree courses and therefore the concerned States to be within their authority and/or legislative competence to provide for a separate source of entry for in-service candidates seeking admission to postgraduate degree courses in exercise of powers under Entry 25 of List III
…..
8) that the State has the legislative competence and/or authority to provide for a separate source of entry for in-service candidates seeking admission to postgraduate degree/diploma courses, in exercise of powers under Entry 25, List III. However, it is observed that policy must provide that subsequent to obtaining the postgraduate degree by the concerned in-service doctors obtaining entry in degree courses through such separate channel serve the State in the rural, tribal and hilly areas at least five years after obtaining the degree/diploma and for that they will execute bonds for such sum the respective States may consider fit and proper”
6. I further submit that another leg of challenge of the Writ Petitioner is that the stipulations made in Sl. No. 29(c) dilutes any conception of merit in admissions. Such a stand is inherently false and shows a lack of understanding of the impugned stipulations. Firstly, the aspiring in-service candidates also must clear the NEET Examinations with the minimum prescribed marks. Further, the incentive marks provided to the in-service candidates who have served in the notified areas is on the basis of the marks obtained in the NEET examinations and therefore the principle of merit is already well-instilled and well-ingrained in the impugned provisions and therefore is reasonable and rational and does not require any intervention by this Hon’ble Court. I further submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that there is a legitimate and rational basis for providing a separate channel of entry in-service candidates in order to encourage them to offer their services and expertise to the State and that further it has a rational nexus with the larger goal of equalization educational opportunities and to sufficiently prefer the doctors serving in the various hospitals run and maintained out of public funds, in the absence of which there would be serious dearth of qualified Post-graduate doctors to meet the requirements of the common public. Further, it has been held that such action is in discharge of constitutional obligations of the State provided in Article 47 of the Constitution of India.
7. I humbly submit that the total number of PG Medical Seats in India is given in the tabular column mentioned hereunder:

8. As is seen from the above table, in total there are 42,717 post graduate seats in the entire country. As per the Prospectus for 2021-22, the total number of post graduate seats in TN Government Medical Colleges is 1938, out of which 969 (50%) of the seats are surrendered to the All India Quota. The remaining 969 seats are the state quota seats. From this 969 seats, only a meagre 484 seats are reserved for in-service candidates in the state. Therefore, to claim that providing incentive marks to the in-service candidates in the open category dilutes the concept of merit, holds no water. Out of these aforementioned seats, only a mere 484 have been reserved for in-service candidates in the state of Tamil Nadu and hence there is absolutely no question of denying merit, to the contrary, the incentive marks provided to the in-service candidates who have attained the requisite marks in NEET exam in proportion to the marks secured only furthers the principle of merit.
9. I further submit, that out of 42,717 seats in the entire country, only a meagre 484 seats is reserved for TN in-service candidates and another 484 seats in the open competition in Tamil Nadu State PG Counselling. So the question of denying a fair chance to the non-service candidates does not arise at all.
10. I humbly submit the data for the past two years clearly goes to show that the non-service candidates are not denied a fair chance in their seats selection.

2019 DATA
Category All India
quota DNB TNPG
Clinical Seats TNPG Non-Clinical Seats Diploma
Seats TOTAL
Service 44 7 639 281 8 979
Private 1899 561 967 94 4 3625
TOTAL 1943 568 1606 375 12 4504

To summarise the above data,

Total Seats Taken by TamilNadu Candidate 4504
Tamil Nadu Non-service Candidate Seats 3525
Tamil Nadu Service candidate seats 979

2020 DATA
Category All India
Quota DNB TNPG
Clinical seats TNPG Non clinical seats Diploma seats TOTAL
Service 72 9 416(33%) 220 14 731
Private 2142 677 809(66%) 87 3 3718
TOTAL 2214 686 1225 307 17 4449

To summarise the above data,
Total Seats Taken By Tamil Nadu
Candidates 4449
Seats taken By Non-service Candidates 3718
Tamil Nadu Service Candidate seats 731

11. I submit, from the above data that, here the actual aggrieved persons are the in-service candidates who could not opt their seats from the 42000+ All India Quota seats, instead are limited to 969 seats in the Tamil Nadu State Counselling.
12. I further submit, that concept of providing in-service reservation itself was on the ground that there are shortages of specialist doctors in the rural areas. I therefore humbly submit that the impugned provisions of the PG Prospectus are fair, reasonable and constitutional.
13. I further submit it is relevant to note that Regulation 9 had been framed by MCI (now NMC) in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 20 read with Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 and has been amended from time to time. It presently reads as under:
“Regulation 9 -Procedure for selection of candidate for Postgraduate courses shall be as follows:
(IV)The reservation of seats in Medical Colleges/institutions for respective categories shall be as per applicable laws prevailing in States/Union Territories. An all India merit list as well as State-wise merit list of the eligible candidates shall be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test and candidates shall be admitted to Postgraduate Courses from the said merit lists only.
Provided that in determining the merit of candidates who are in service of government/public authority, weightage in the marks may be given by the Government/Competent Authority as an incentive upto 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service in remote and/or difficult areas or Rural areasupto maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in National Eligibility-cum Entrance Test. The remote and/or difficult areas or Rural areas shall be as notified by State Government/Competent authority from time to time.”.
I humbly submit it is seen from Regulation 9 (IV), it is clearly mentioned that incentives upto 10 % of the marks obtained for each year of service in remote and/or difficult areas or rural areas upto maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in NEET-PG. This clause 9 (IV) does not restrict incentive marks only to the in-service category and does not take away the power of the Government to provide incentives in the open category.Out of total number of seats in state quota, State Government has every right to conduct counselling and prescribe the method of selection of candidates into the Post Graduate Courses and there is absolutely no embargo on the State Government to grant incentive marks to the in-service candidates even in the open category.
14. I further submit that service candidates cannot participate with incentive marks in All India Quota Counselling. Most of the seats in the All India Quota is taken by non-service candidates only. To add to this, non-service candidates has the wide option of participating in 50 % of All India Quota seats in all the States, 100% DNB seats across the country and also open category seats in State Counselling. So, the question of denying the non-service candidates a fair chance does not hold good. I further submit that while the non-service candidates have the comfort and luxuries of being in tier-1 cities during the preparation, the in-service candidates are serving in remote areas with very few basic amenities available and the Government having realized all these practical difficulties has decided to provide incentive marks, which is well within its power.
15. I humbly submit that according to the information bulletin released by the National Board of Examinations and Medical Sciences for the NEET-PG 2021, in the clause 10.8.3 it is stated that:
10.8.3.It is hereby clarified that a candidate may qualify NEET-PG 2021 as per criteria mentioned in para 10.1 but may not be in the list of candidates eligible for counseling for All India 50% quota seats based on eligibility criteria provided by designated counseling authority. Such a candidate is however eligible to be considered for counseling for State quota seats in accordance with applicable regulations, qualifying criteria, applicable guidelines and state reservation policies.
Hence, it is clear from the NEET-PG Information Bulletin for the year 2021, in Clause 10.8 sub clause 3, State Counselling will be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations, qualifying criteria, applicable guidelines and state reservation policies. The power of conducting Counselling for state Quota seats vests with State Government with applicable regulations, qualifying criteria, applicable guidelines and state reservation policies. As per the powers vested with State government, Govt. of Tamil Nadu released its prospectus for admission into post-graduate degree/diploma seats in govt. medical colleges/Govt.seats in self-financing medical colleges and so it is constitutionally valid.
15. I further submit, that even in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the State of Tamil Nadu has been the front runner in the management of both the waves of the pandemic, largely because of the robust public health infrastructure and public health policies that we have developed over the years.The role of government doctors in managing the pandemic is evident for all to see. While in the line of duty, around 15 government doctors had succumbed to the deadly virus. The State of Tamil Nadu is being considered as a model state in the management and containment of COVID-19 virus. This is simply attributed to the specialists and experts who were readily available in the tier II and tier III cities and small towns to treat the complications of this virus. If this system, which is a time tested one, is disturbed, this will create chaos and havoc in the well established public health model. Therefore this emphasizes the need to have well trained doctors in all rural areas, which can be promoted only by giving adequate incentives for doctors to serve in those areas.
16.I humbly submit, that non-service candidates including those selected through 50% All India quota who complete post- graduation/Super Speciality courses in Tamil Nadu have to work in the government hospitals of Tamil Nadu for the bond period of five years (Clause 36 (f) and (g) of TNPG Prospectus) so that specialists shortage at rural areas wont arise. However, unfortunately most of the non-service candidates after completion of their post-graduation do no execute the bond period and skip the counselling conducted by the Director of Medical Education.This is evident from the letter of the Director of Medical Education vide Ref. No.34690/MEII/1/2020. As a result, there occurs shortage of specialists in the rural areas and the real sufferers are public at large. Whereas, that is not the case with service candidates, they will have to work in the rural areas till their superannuation. However it is pertinent to state that there has not been a single instance of service candidate violating their bond period so far thereby making the availability of specialist care to the rural people.
17. I humbly submit, the State of Tamil Nadu had constituted two high level committees headed by then Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Managing Director Dr. Umanath IAS and another committee headed by Hon’ble Retd. Justice Thiru A. Selvam based on the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.A Nos.1051,1117 to 1124 of 2018 in W.P Nos .7231,7857 to 7861,8116 and 8117 of 2018. I further submit based on the observation made by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in para 39 of its order dated 17.5.2018, the Government of Tamil Nadu have constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Justice A. Selvam (Retd.), High Court Judge of Madras in the G.O. No. 536, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 15.11.2018 and provided the following recommendations:
“a)To take up the issue of awarding marks on the basis of nature of work in addition to areas based incentives with Medical Council of India for bringing in necessary amendments in the relevant act.
b)To re-introduce 50 percent reservation for in-service candidates in Post-graduate medical seats, considering the fact that the Government of Tamil Nadu has decidedto convert all Post-graduate diploma seats into Post-Graduate degree courses in line with the decision of Medical council of India to do away with Diploma courses.”
18. It is further submitted that the power of the State to provide for a separate source of entry in matters of admission in medical education flows from Entry 25, List III of the Constitution, whereas the power of the Union in matters of coordination and determination of standards in matters of admission in medical education is derived from Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III. The relevant Entries under Schedule VII of the Constitution are as under:

“List I
66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.
List III
25. Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour.”

19. It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of judgements had repeatedly upheld the right of the State Governments to set apart a definite percentage of educational seats at Post Graduation level consisting of Degree and Diploma Courses exclusively for a class of persons as a separate source of entry, with the condition that the source is properly classified whether on territorial, geographical or other reasonable basis and has a rational nexus with the object of imparting a particular education and effective selection for the purpose. More particularly, Hon’ble Supreme Court had upheld providing in-service candidates a separate source of entry by accepting that the classification of candidates between in-service doctors and non-service doctors has a reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved i.e. of providing adequate and affordable healthcare in the public sector.
20. I further submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others has observed, that the States had exclusive power to legislate with respect to all aspects of education barring determination of standards and coordination by the Parliament i.e State’s rights in regulating medical education is preserved. Hence the State has every right to define and prescribe the admission, selection and Counselling process in its Quota of seats and there is no law/act which curtails this right. So the Prospectus released by the secretary, selection committee, Directorate of Medical Education is well within the purview of the state government and is constitutionally valid based on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. I further submit that the judgments cited by the Writ Petitioner cannot be relied upon since the said judgments relate a period prior to the introduction of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 by the Medical Council of India. Hence the said judgments are not relevant to the facts of the present case and hence cannot be relied upon.
22. I further submitthat Hon’ble Apex court in the Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Case observed:
“…….. In¬service Doctors come with vast practical experience of serving several years in the Government Health Services and treating countless patients. Whereas the fresh MBBS graduates, even though may score higher because of their recent connection with the textbooks, do not have any such experience. Their marks are only reflective of their theoretical knowledge and ability to memorize and answer examination questions. It is submitted that thus, in¬-service Doctors having vast experience and fresh graduates having no such experience, form two different classes and cannot be equated. It is submitted that forcing in-service Doctors to compete with the fresh graduates in their theoretical knowledge will be extremely, unfair, illogical and irrational;”
23. I state that as far as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, right from the year 1989 the State had a policy of providing a separate source of entry to in-service candidates to the extent of 50% of the State seats in degree courses. Further, since 2007, by way Government orders, the State of Tamil Nadu has also provided for preferential weightage to those in-service candidates who have served in rural, hilly and difficult areas. Therefore, the policy of the State Government has been adopted with a view to ensure adequate healthcare in the public sector and to further ensure filling of vacancies in government hospitals, particularly in rural, hilly and difficult areas. The aforesaid policy followed by the Tamil Nadu Government has resulted in drastic improvement in the overall public healthcare infrastructure with adequate staffing across the State and improvement in health indicators, particularly when compared to other States in the country.
24.I humbly submit, that not all the in-service candidates are given incentive marks. Incentive marks are given based on the place of work and atleast two years of continuous service. This is explained very clearly in G.O.(Ms). No.86 of Health and Family Welfare Department. Out of 2596 PHCs and GHs in Tamil Nadu, Only 139 health facilities are eligibile for 10% incentives contributing to 5.3 % of total government health facilities. I further submit 745 facilities are eligible for 9% incentives contributing to 28% of total government facilities. I further state that 26 facilities are eligible for 8% incentives contributing to 1% of total health facilities. 1140 facilities are eligible for 5 % incentives contributing to 43.9% of total govt. health facilities. It is pertinent to note that 546 facilities are not entitled to any incentives which contributes to about 21 % of total govt. health facilities.
25. I further state that in the Tamil Nadu PG counselling merit list, only ranks upto 1500 would get clinical speciality seats every year. On analysing the incentive percentage of marks distribution for the past two years, only a meagre amount of service doctors claim incentives within the first 1500 ranks. So the point of service doctors taking away the seats of non-service candidates does not hold good.To substantiate the above fact, data for the year 2019-20 and 2020-21 academic years are given below:

2019-2020 DATA

2020-2021 DATA

26. I humbly submit that, out of 12000 MBBS doctors in service, relatively less number of doctors get this incentive marks, that too based on the areas they work risking their lives and foregoing the comforts in their youth.
27.I further submit that, this model of incentivizing in service doctors has been adopted by the Government of India, National Medical Commission to create a level-playing field between the in-service candidates and non-service aka private candidates as private candidates attend many lucrative coaching classes and dedicate full time preparing for the post-graduate entrance examinations whereas government doctors work 24/7 in the public sector.Even in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it is the government doctors who stood guard against the deadly virus when all the private hospitals were rejecting patients.
28. I further submit that the present writ petition seeking to quash the prospectus providing 50% reservation or in-service candidates and providing incentive marks for the in-service candidates will gravely prejudice me, since I am an in-service doctor and I appeared in the NEET examination and secured 377 marks. Pursuant to the PG Prospectus, I have also made my application bearing ref no. 107030 and therefore any decision or order made in the present proceedings would cause grave and irreparable hardship to me and my career and hence I state that I am a necessary party to the present writ petition. I further submit that the 2nd Impleading Petitioner Association has taken painstaking efforts to ensure that the in-service candidates are given their necessary reservations and have made several representations dated 12.04.2021, 07.10.2021 to the Government authorities for this purpose and hence the 2nd Impleading Petitioner is also a necessary party to the present writ petition in order to canvass the case of 100s of in-service doctors who will be affected by any decision in this case. I state that my valuable rights along with the rights of 100’s of in-service doctors would be affected by any decision taken in the above writ petition and therefore I humbly submit that in the interest of justice, the impleading petitioners herein must be impleaded in the writ petition as party respondents and permitted to make submissions and defend the impugned prospectus in order for the proper adjudication of the present case.
29. For the reasons stated above, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to implead the Petitioners herein as a party respondents in W.P. No. 25749of 2021 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and thus render justice.

DEPONENT

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on this
the …. day of December, 2021
and signed his name in my presence BEFORE ME

ADVOCATE-CHENNAI