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