Dr. Keshav And Others vs State Of Bihar And Others

Sanjay Karol, CJ

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Intervenors.

Two intervention applications have been filed on behalf of the applicants praying therein that they may be impleaded as party respondents.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, both the interlocutory applications stand allowed.

Registry to make necessary corrections in the cause title.

Re.: Letters Patent Appeal No.257 of 2020

The learned Single Judge disposed of the petitioners/appellants' writ petition (CWJC No.5624 of 2020 titled as Dr. Keshav & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) vide judgement dated 07.05.2020 holding that in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Saurabh Chuahdry & Ors. Versus the Union of India & ors., (2003) 11 SCC 146, the State was well within its right to fill up 50% State Quota Seats of Bihar in terms of the prospectus issued by the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board for the PGMAC 2020.

In so far as the petitioners/appellants' claim for benefit under and in terms of Regulation 9(IV) notified by the Medical Council of India vide Notification No.MCI-18(1)/2010-Mad/62052 dated 15th February, 2012 and as amended subsequently vide Notification No. MCI-18(1)/2018-Med./100818 dated 05.04.2018, learned Single Judge, in view of the decision rendered by another learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.15523 of issue open, more so when the State, as is evident from para-7 of the impugned judgement had intended to prefer an appeal against the said judgement. The issue on this point was thus left open, making the parties bound by the outcome of the decision in the appeal which the State had proposed to file.

We notice that the petitioners/appellants had also referred to and relied upon another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Saurabh Dwivedi and others Versus Union of India, (2017) 7 SCC 626, in relation to which the learned Single Judge did not return any finding, perhaps, in view of the Letters Patent Appeal which was sought to be filed by the State.

Sri Patanjali Rishi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants clarifies that he does not press the appeal with regard to the finding of Institutional preference as returned by the learned Single Judge. Petitioners/appellants herein restrict their benefit and confine their pleas with regard to their entitlement and grant of incentive under Regulation 9(IV).

It is not in dispute that on this issue the appeal preferred by the State as also one of the interventionist stands adjudicated by this Court in terms of the judgement dated 28.05.2020 passed in LPA No. 255 of 2020 titled as Ankit Abhishek Vs. Dr.Ravi Ranjan Kumar & Ors and LPA No.256 of 2020 titled as The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Ravi Ranjan Kumar & Ors., holding the doctors who have served the State in the areas specified by the State in terms of proviso to Regulation 9(IV) to be entitled to the incentives in terms thereof.

It is in this backdrop, Sri Patanjali Rishi states that the petitioners/appellants' appeal can also be disposed of to which both Shri. P. K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor respondents and Sri Mrigank Mauli, learned Counsel for the intervenor respondents have no objection.

In Ankit Abhishek (supra), we have extensively dealt with the rights and entitlement of the doctors, who have served in any one of the areas specified by the State, holding them to be entitled to the benefits of the incentives in terms of Regulation 9(IV), of course, subject to verification of service record.

At this stage, Shri Patanjali Rishi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants states that even otherwise, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to the benefit of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Saurabh Dwivedi (supra). In view of our findings returned in Ankit Abhishek (supra), we need not, at this stage, go into this question.

As such, as prayed for, by the appellants/writ petitioners, the appeal stands disposed of making the directions contained in the judgement dated 28.05.2020 passed in Ankit Abhishek (supra) applicable, mutatis mutandis, also to the instant appellants/writ petitioners.

No order as to costs.