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