The High Court on Wednesday accepted government’s plea against providing benefit of weightage in PG admission to a doctor working on contractual basis under National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). The doctor had sought weightage for serving in inaccessible and difficult area under the NRHM.
While allowing an appeal bythe government, a division bench of Justice Ali Muhammad Magrey and JusticeTashi Rabstan set aside its single bench judgment which had directed thegovernment to accord consideration to the benefit of marks weightage to acontractual doctor under NRHM for serving in inaccessible difficult area.
In its Letters PatentAppeal, the J&K government and its concerned functionaries had called inquestion the single bench’s judgment.
The judgment came after thebench heard state’s Additional Advocate General, Shah Aamir, as also counselfor the doctor.
The court observed that”inaccessible and difficult area is categorised by the Director Health ServicesKashmir for a period of two years in terms of SRO 48 of 2018 dated 30.01.2018providing for entitlement to weightage for serving in the difficult areas asdefined under notification SRO 201 of 2006 dated 15.06.2006 for admission toMD/MS/Post Graduate Diploma Courses for the academic session 2018-2019″.
“Weare of the view that the learned Writ Court has erred in holding that SRO 201of 2006 does not define difficult or remote areas. This SRO has to be readconjointly with the relevant provisions of the J&K CSRs mentioned thereinwhich identify and define the difficult areas,” the bench said.
The court pointed out that”it is to be borne in mind that the word defined used in proviso to Regulation9(4) of the MCI Regulations, apart from connoting the meaning of a word or aphrase, means to having a definite outline or specification; precisely markedor stated”.
“It is seen that SRO 201 of2006 read with the provisions of J&K CSRs mentioned therein clearlyspecify, mark out and state limits of the difficult areas,” the bench said.
“Thelearned single judge has also erred in relying on the categorization of certainareas made by the Director Health Services Kashmir entitling the doctors postedin such areas to monetary incentives mentioned therein, for purposes of thebenefit of the weightage envisaged and mandated by proviso to Regulation 9(4)of the MCI Regulations read with Clause 4-A of the Jammu and Kashmir GovernmentMedical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Post Graduation Degree andDiploma Courses) Procedure Order, 1995”.
TheCourt observed that R. A. Jan, senior counsel who appeared on behalf of theaggrieved doctor, wanted it to gather the legislative intention behind theproviso to Regulation 9(4) of the MCI Regulations and SRO 48 of 2018.
In response to thecontention by advocate Jan that general rules must yield to the special ruleson a subject, the court said, “We are of the view that such questions do notarise in the instant case; therefore, the citations referred are not attractedto the facts of the case”.
“Accordingly, we are of theconsidered opinion that the impugned judgment cannot withstand the test of lawand it warrants interference by us in this appeal,” the bench ruled.