Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
12. The 50% institutional reservation in AMU and BHU, which B had been reflected in their prospectus, was not challenged by any body before the High Court. As stated earlier, AMU and BHU were not parties before the High Court. The MCI and the Union of India were also not parties before the High Court. The High Court did not take into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of Saurabh Chaudri (supra) and other cases upholding institutional preferences in central C universities. The High Court did not also take into consideration the fact that the State had no power to control admissions to these universities. Therefore, as far as the first issue is concerned, we are clearly of the view that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and the order of the High Court is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
13. As far as the second issue is concerned, Rule 9(iv) clearly provides that an incentive at the rate of I 0% of the marks for each year can be provided to those in service candidates, who have served in remote or difficult areas subject to the condition that the highest incentive will • be of 30% marks. The power to notify the remote and difficult areas is E vested with the State Government. This power has been upheld by this Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan 's case (supra). It would be pertinent to mention that in this case, this Court only upheld this power and held that Rule 9 (iv) of the 2000 Regulations is a complete Code in itself. This Court was not dealing with the question as to whether the benefit of weightage of marks for having served in remote or difficult areas could be given only to local in service doctors or to the entire category of in service doctors.
14. In fact, Rule 9 (iv) itself only provides for weightage being given for each year, of service rendered in remote and difficult areas. The purpose behind this rule is that those doctors who willingly served in G remote and difficult areas should be given some preference while considering them for admission to post-graduate courses. The intention is to benefit those who left the comforts of towns and cities and are willing to work in difficult conditions in remote and difficult areas. The State ofU .P. had also issued a Circular which inter alia reads as follows: DR. SAURABH DWIVEDI AND ORS. y,_~UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.] "9. Benefit ofWeightage/reservation to Medical Officers belonging A to PMHS category: In accordance with the judgment passed by Hon 'ble Supreme Court and Regulations framed by Medical and Health Department of the State as per MCI guidelines, the State Department shall issue no objection certificates to the MBBS Degree Holding Doctors belonging to PMHS Cadre for counselling by giving weightage as per rules and the merit list shall be accordingly modified and they shall be given admission in the Government Medical Colleges/Universities/Private Medical Colleges. The proceedings for the PMHS category Medical Officers for Government Medical Colleges/Universities shall be taken in accordance with the Post Graduate Regulation, 2000 and policy framed vide Govt. Order No. 4197/med-3-l 6-G-179/2005 dated 23.12.2016 issued by Medical Department."
15. The aforesaid circular clearly mentions that benefit of Rule 9(iv) of the 2000 Regulations shall be available to medical officers belonging to PMHS cadre, who have served in remote and difficult areas. c No distinction has been made between those who have graduated from within the State ofU.P. or those who have graduated from outside the State of U .P. Once the graduate doctors, whether they have qualified their MBBS/BDS examination from within the State of U.P. or from any other part of the country, are selected and join the medical health service in the State of U.P., they form part of one service, i.e. PMHS. Thereafter, when these doctors are posted to remote or difficult areas they are posted as doctors of PMHS and not on the basis as to which State they have done their graduation from. We, therefore, see no reason as to why the benefit ofweightage in terms of Regulation 9(iv) should be limited to those in service candidates of the PMHS category, who have graduated from within the State ofU.P. This is a totally artificial distinction drawn up by the High Court. In fact, the State of U .P. had also not made any such distinction and the affidavit of the Chief Secretary G was categorical that the 2000 Regulations had not created such a divide or distinction. In this regard, we may make reference to the following portion of the affidavit of the Chief Secretary: "14. That since the Hon 'ble Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Regulation 9 and has categorized it as a complete code and a H c [20 l 7] 4 S.C.R. provision for determining inte'r-se merit and grant of weightage to in-service candidates who have worked in notified, remote or difficult areas in the state, and there is nothing in the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000 to create a divide or a distinction between such of the in-house candidates who may have done their graduation from outside the State, therefore, no such divide is created at the level of the Director General Medical and Health while considering the cases of in-house candidates and giving weightage to them and thereafter recommending the name to the Direcfor General Medical Education for counselling."
16. We, therefore, hold that the High Court erred in deciding that only those in service doctors who had cleared their MBBS examination from within the State of U.P., were only entitled to the benefit of Regulation 9(iv) of the 2000 Regulations.
17. We are also of the view that not only the High Court transgressed its jurisdiction and went beyond the scope of the writ petition D but by the impugned order set at naught the entire selection process only two days before the last datsi ofadmissions making it vi1tually impossible to comply with the direction of the High Comt within the sho1t period of two days.
18. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order dated "29.05.20 l 7 passed by the High Court and all directions issued by it. We also set aside all consequential ~ction taken by the State ofU .P. or any other authority or institution pursttant to the directions of the High Court.
19. The State ofUttar Pradesh has filed I.A. No. 45327 of20 l 7 in Writ Petition (C) No.76of2015 praying for extension of the last date of admission as laid dewn in Ashish Ranjan v. Union oflndia & Ors., (2016) I l SCC 22.5 for a period of one month to comply with the directions issued by the High Court. Since we have set aside the judgment of the High Court,. there is no need to re-draw the merit list.
20. The learned counsel for the AMU has urged that the time for G filling up the seats be extended since on account of the confusion created by the order of the High Court a large number of seats are sti II lying vacant in the AMU. Similar request has also been made by the learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh on behalf of the Government run medical colleges/institutions. ln view of the order dated 18.01.20 l 6 H passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 76 of 20 l 5 and connected DR. SAURABH DWIVED! AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.] matters titled Ashish Ranjan v. Union ofindia & Ors:, (2016) 11 SCC 225, normally we would be reluctant to extend the time. However, the present case has some peculiar facts of its own. The High Coutt has, on a totally erroneous basis, set aside a substantial portion of the counselling on 29th May, 2017 which would have resulted in fresh counselling and, therefore, some seats which could be filled up on 30'h or 31" May, 2017 could not be filled up. That process which would have taken only 2 days' time, would now require a minimum of5 or 6 days' time because action will have to be taken afresh.
21. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and all consequential action taken by the State of U .P. and/or any other authority pursuant to that order. It is clarified that those who were counselled and granted admission prior to the impugned judgement of the High Court shall be permitted to continue in their respective courses. The time for filling up the vacant seats, if any, in AMU, BHU and Government run medical colleges/institutions in the State ofU.P. is extended up to 12' 11 June, 2017 in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. We further permit the AMU, BHU and Government run medical colleges/institutions in the State to fill up the seats in the post graduate courses in the AMU, BHU and Government run medical colleges/institutions up to 12.06.2017. All the civil appeals as well as the interlocutory application(s) relating to the State ofUttar Pradesh in Writ Petition (C) No. 76of2015 are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Nidhi Jain Appeals disposed of.