HC upholds Haryana’s admission policy for in-service doctors

The court observed that the state has the power to provide for a separate channel of admission to postgraduate courses meant for in-service doctors and the legislative competence of the state in this regard cannot be questioned

The Punjab and Haryana high court has upheld the September 2024 policy of the Haryana government for admissions to MD/ MS courses in the state from among the in-service doctors.

Under the state quota, in-service doctors receive a 40% reservation. (HT FILE)

Under the state quota, in-service doctors receive a 40% reservation. The September 2024 policy allowed that even without rendering two-year service in rural/remote areas in the state, the government medical practitioners can also apply. However, a group of doctors challenged this specific condition. They argued that unless an in-service candidate has worked in rural/remote/difficult areas, he/she cannot be treated as an in-service candidate under the 40% quota for admission to the postgraduate course.

According to a January 2018 notification, the Haryana government has notified 46 blocks situated in various districts as remote/difficult areas of the state, for the purpose of providing various benefits/incentives.

The court observed that the state has the power to provide for a separate channel of admission to postgraduate courses meant for in-service doctors and the legislative competence of the state in this regard cannot be questioned.

The court observed that by framing its policy, the state intends to ensure that the MBBS doctors employed by it are provided higher qualification so that such doctors are better equipped to provide improved medical facilities in the rural areas. The policy contemplates furnishing of a bond by such in-service doctors to render minimum five-year service in rural/difficult areas and thereby ensure that the purpose for which the policy is framed is duly subserved.

“Providing health services to the citizenry in the state is one of the important functions assigned to the state government. The state, therefore, would be well within its jurisdiction to take measures consistent with the object of providing improved medical facilities in the rural areas by posting specialised doctors who have higher qualification,” it observed, adding that the state’s wisdom in specifying the manner in which admission is to be offered to in-service doctors cannot be objected to by the petitioners, unless it is shown that the impugned policy itself contravenes any constitutional provision, or is manifestly arbitrary or unjust.

The court found that the notification issued by the state categorically provides that such in-service doctors, who have not served in difficult areas would have to execute a bond undertaking to serve the state government for five years in rural/remote/difficult areas after acquiring such postgraduate qualification. The object of the state policy is to provide better medical facilities to the common masses in the state. Such an objective is adequately achieved by the doctors executing the requisite bond to serve in such rural/remote/difficult areas for a period of five years, it added.

The court also noted that the state policy also carves out a distinction between those in-service doctors who have completed two years of posting in rural/remote/difficult areas and those who have not done so. Those who have actually worked in rural/remote/difficult areas for two years have been allowed to pursue postgraduate courses as in-service doctors with full salary along with all other available service benefits. However, those in-service doctors who have not rendered service in such areas have been denied salary during the period of their postgraduate study and the benefit to them is restricted to providing or counting of services etc., without any salary to them.

“…therefore, (policy) makes out a valid distinction between the two classes of in-service doctors by providing regular salary to those who have already rendered rural/remote/difficult service for two years and by restricting the benefit of continuity in service alone to other in-service doctors who have not rendered two years’ service in rural/remote/difficult areas,” it observed, adding that the distinction drawn between two sets of in-service doctors is based on “intelligible differentia” and has specific object to achieve i.e., providing of improved medical facilities in rural/difficult areas.