DR. SARATH PURUSHOTHAMAN P. and others v. STATE OF KERALA and others

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2018 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 14289 of 2018** **-----------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)** **-------------** **1 DR.SARATH PURUSHOTHAMAN. P., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O PURUSHOTHAMAN. P.K, PANAKKAL HOUSE, PADIYOOR. P.O, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR-680 688.** - **2 DR.AMAL SASIDHARAN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.DR.I.M. SASIDHARAN, MADHAVAM, MYTHREE LANE, KODUNGALLUR. P.O, THRISSUR-680 664.** ## **3 DR.ANANTAKRISHNAN. R,** **AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRANATHAN. E, EACHARATH HOUSE, ARIYANUR. P.O, THRISSUR-680 102.** ## **4 DR.ANAS. S,** **S/O.A. SAINUDEEN KUNJU, ANAS MANZIL(PALLIVADAKKATHIL), ADINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU. P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY-690 542.** **5 DR.ANEES AHAMMED KURIKKAL. O.V, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O MANU KURIKKAL O.V, ANEES MAHAL, KOLAPARAMBA. P.O, MALAPPURAM-676 522.** ## **6 DR.ANUSREE. V,** **AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.T.V. HARINDRANATHAN, HARISREE HOUSE, PERINKONNU, CHENGALAYI. P.O, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR-670 631.** ## **7 DR.BUENA. R.,** - **AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.A. KARIM, T.C.13/1502(1), BURMA ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE. P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.** **8 DR.DON ZACH CHERIYAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O SURESH CHERIYAN, PUNNACKATTU BABY VILLA, KALLISSERY. P.O, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA-689 124.** ## **9 DR.DRISYA JAGADEES,** **AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.JAGADEES BABU. V.D, VAZHAPPULLY HOUSE, THANISSERY. P.O, MANAPPADI, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR-680 701.** **WP(C).No. 14289 of 2018** **10 DR.EBENEZER YOHANNAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.YOHANNAN. O, EBENEZER BHAVAN, VENGOOR. P.O, AYOOR, KOLLAM-691 533.** ## **11 DR.FABIYA. K.M,** **AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.MOHAMMED YOUSUF, KOCHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MATHILAKAM. P.O, PUTHIYAKAVU, THRISSUR-680 685.** **12 DR.FASEEH MOHAMMED P.V, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED KUTTY. P.N, NARIKKUTH HOUSE, PULIKKAL. P.O, MALAPPURAM-673 637.** **13 DR.HRIDYA. P, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.PRASAD B.N, BLANGAT HOUSE, ENGANDIYUR. P.O, THRISSUR-680 615.** ## **14 DR.INDU. K.R,** **AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.RAJEEV K.S, KADAVIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, PADINJAREMURI, VAIKOM. P.O, KOTTAYAM -686 141.** **15 DR.INDU T.R, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.RATHIKUMAR T.R, THANDIYAKKAL HOUSE, ANTHIKAD. P.O, THRISSUR-680 641.** **16 DR.JASITHA ABDUL JABBAR, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.ABDUL JABBAR, PULIKKAL HOUSE, KUDALLUR.P.O, PALAKKAD-679 554.** - **17 DR.KAVITHA. K,** **AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.P. KRISHNA KUMAR, KRISHNA KRIPA, SURYA THEATRE, A.N. PURAM, ALAPPUZHA-688 011.** **18 DR.LAL KRISHNA A.U, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.G.T. UNNIKRISHNAN, KANNAN MANDHIRAM, VADAKKEVILA. P.O, MULLIVILA, KOLLAM-691 010.** **19 DR.MARIA JOSEPH, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O DR V.T. JOSEPH, VETTOM HOUSE, LINK INDIA ROAD, VENNALA. P.O, ERANAKULAM-682 028.** **20 DR.MARIA SUNNY, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.SUNNY JOSEPH, CHERUSSERIL HOUSE, VEROOR. P.O, CHANGANASSERY-686 104.** **21 DR.MEERA RAJAN, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.RAJAN S.G, PLACKAL, ALAKODE. P.O, KANNUR-670 571.** **WP(C).No. 14289 of 2018** **22 DR.NAJMA. N, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O KHAIS KUNINGATT, KUNINGATT HOUSE, PURAMERI, KUNINGAD.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673 503.** **23 DR.NIRANJAN. A.V, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.M. VIJAYAKUMAR, ARAMAM 10/927-B, THAKALLA, KACHANI, KARAKULAM. P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 564.** **24 DR.PARVATHY P.YOGANADHAN, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.DR.M.N. YOGANADHAN NAMPOOTHIRY, FLAT NO.5B, SKYLINE INFINITY, CARMEL PARK ROAD, MUNDUPALAM, THRISSUR-680 001.** **25 DR.PRATHIBHA. T, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O DEVADASAN. K, PERURTHARAYIL HOUSE, MANAPPALLY SOUTH, S V MARKET P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 518.** **26 DR.RINSHY ABDUL, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O ABDULKADER V.K, ANEES MANZIL, OLARIKKARA, PULLAZHY. P.O, THRISSUR-680 012.** **27 DR.SADICK P.M, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED P.K, PUTHIYAVEETTIL GARDENS, MANNAM. P.O, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM-683 520. 28 DR.SMRTHI VIJAY, D/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, SREEVIJAYAM, RAVI VARMA LANE, ATTINGAL. P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 101. 29 DR.SONA VIJAY, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.K.K. VIJAYAGOPALAN, AMARJYOTHI, KAITHAKKUNDA, AYIKKARAPPADI. P.O, PULIKKAL, MALAPPURAM-673 637. 30 DR.SREELAKSHMI BALAKRISHNAN, D/O.BALAKRISHNAN. M.V, SWATHI, SANKARAYYAR ROAD, POOTHOLE. P.O, THRISSUR-680 004. 31 DR.SREESHMA VARGHESE, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.T.D. VARGHESE, THIRUMATTATHIL HOUSE, ROSE VILLA, PAYANGADI. P.O, KANNUR-670 303. 32 DR.SUMINA ABBAS, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.M. ABBAS, HUSSAIN VILLA, MARKET ROAD, ATTINGAL. P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 101.** **WP(C).No. 14289 of 2018** **33 DR.URMILA. M.G, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.MADANAMOHANAN NAIR. N, KAVALLOOR VEEDU, KEEZHAROOR JUNCTION, KEEZHAROOR. P.O, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 130. 34 DR.VIPIN V.PILLAI, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.VIDYADHARAN PILLAI, NILACKAL HOUSE, PULIMEL, PATTOR. P.O, ALAPPUZHA-690 529. 35 DR.YAMEENA HAMEED, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.P.A.A. ABDUL HAMEED, POOVATHAVNGAL HOUSE, MAHILALAYAM SCHOOL ROAD, THOTTUMUGAM. P.O, ALUVA-683 105. 36 DR.NABEEL THAHA, 28 YEARS, S/O.THAHA. M, PUTHENVILA HOUSE, MUTTAPPALAM, S.V. PURAM. P.O, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 145. 37 DR.AADIL ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM. K.M, KADAMBAT HOUSE, LALOOR ROAD, ELTHURUTH. P.O, THRISSUR-680 611. 38 DR.AARYA SERIN RAJU, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.DR.RAJU DAVID, KANAVU HOUSE, KIZHATHADIYOOR. P.O, MEENACHIL, PALA, KOTTAYAM-686 574. 39 DR.SREEDATH. M, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SURESH KUMAR M.S, MARAKKATH HOUSE, ELAVALLY SOUTH. P.O, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR-680 511. 40 DR.PHILIP TOJO KALLOOPPARAMBAN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.JOSE P.KALLOOPPARAMBIL, KALLOOPPARAMBAN HOUSE, P.H. WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 41 DR.ANU PAUL, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.M.M. PAILY, MEKKATTU HOUSE, VAZHUKUMPARA, CHUVANNAMANNU. P.O, PANANCHERY, THRISSUR-680 652.** **42 DR.RESHMA AHMED. C, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.NAZIR AHAMED. C, 'KHAYAAL', THEKKUMURI. P.O, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676 105. 43 DR.ROSHNA AHAMED. C, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.NAZIR AHAMED .C, 'KHAYAAL', THEKKUMURI. P.O, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676 105.** **WP(C).No. 14289 of 2018** **44 DR.JASMIN SCARIA, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.SCARIA E.T, EDAKKANCHERRY HOUSE, KAYANNA P.O, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE-673 526.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.VINODE V. LUKA.** **RESPONDENT(S): --------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, POCKET-14, SECTOR-8, DWARKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110 077, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **3. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.** **4. THE DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** **5. THE NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS, MEDICAL ENCLAVE, ANSARI NAGAR, MAHATMA GANDHI MARG (RING ROAD), NEW DELHI-110 029, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** - **ADDL. R6 TO R15 IMPLEADED** **6. DR.PREETHI C.J., D/O.C.K. JOSE, AGED 37 YEARS, THURUTHIYIL, OLARIKKARA, PULLAZHI P.O., THRISSUR, KERALA.** **7. DR.NASEERA CHERUVAKKATH, D/O.ALI CHERUVAKKATH, AGED 34 YEARS, HARIS MANZIL, MUKKILAPEEDIKA, VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM, KERALA.** **8. DR.SOUMYA V.JOY, D/O.V. JOYI, AGED 34 YEARS, GIRIBHAVAN, PATTITHANAM, KOTTAYAM, KERALA.** **9. DR.JASMIN. A., S/O.P.M. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 29 YEARS, TC NO.13/486(2), NEAR SHERIN GARDENS, ARUVIYODE JUNCTION, MANNANTHALA P.O., THIRUVANANYHAPURAM, KERALA.** **WP(C).No. 14289 of 2018** **10. DR.ABDULLA KUTTY K., S/O.SAIDOOTY HAJI K., AGED 39 YEARS, KALATHINGAL, AVILORA, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE, KERALA.** **11. DR.SASILEKHA V.S., D/O.VASAVAN K., AGED 44 YEARS, KOOTIKKADA P.O., KOLLAM, KERALA.** **12. DR.SURABHI SOMAN, D/O.CHELLAPPAN SOMA, AGED 30 YEARS, GOKULAM, NEAR LOTUS THEATRE, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM, KERALA.** **13. DR.MAREENA MATHEW GEORGE, D/O.GEROLD E.HENRY, AGED 45 YEARS, 17 C, ROYAL EMPRESS, JAWHAR NAGAR, ERANHIPALA, KOZHIKODE, KERALA.** **14. SANDEEP. R., S/O.RAJAN M., AGED 39 YEARS, MULLAMANGALATH MANA, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR, KERALA.** **15. DR.RENJINI CHANDRAN, D/O.B.S. BALACHANDRAN, AGED 33 YEARS, CHEMMALA HOUSE, THRIKKALATHOOR, ERNAKULAM, KERALA.** - **ADDL. R6 TO R15 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29/05/2018 IN I.A. NO.9127/2018.** **R1, R3 & R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V. MANU. R2 BY ADV. SRI.TITUS MANI VETTOM, SC. ADDL. R6 TO R15 BY ADVS. SRI.JOSE ABRAHAM,** **SRI.MANU SRINATH, SRI.N.RAGESH, SRI.CHACKO SIMON, SRI.BINOY DAVIS, SRI.REJI GEORGE.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-05-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** **31/05/2018.** **WP(C).No. 14289 of 2018 (I)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION(AMENDMENT)REGULATIONS,2018, PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE, DATED 05.04.2018, VIDE NO.MCI-18(1)/2018-MED./100818. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 12.04.2018, ISSUED BY THE HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIDE G.O(RT)NO.1218/2018/H&FWD. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADMISSION TO P.G. MEDICAL COURSES 2018,SERVICE QUOTA LIST-REVISED, DATED 02.04.2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SERVICE DETAILS AND INCENTIVES MARKS FOR IN-SERVICE CANDIDATES, PUBLISHED ON 21.04.2018, AFTER THE CONSEQUENT TO EXHIBIT P1 & P2. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INFORMATION BULLETIN FOR NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY CUM ENTRANCE TEST(POST GRADUATE)FOR ADMISSION TO MD/MS/POST GRADUATE DIPLOMA COURSES 2018 ADMISSION SESSION. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS, 2000, AS AMENDED UPTO JULY, 2017. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROSPECTUS ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND APPROVED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE G.O.(MS.)NO.38/2018.H&FWD, DATED 03.03.2018. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MERIT LIST FOR ADMISSIONS TO KERALA PG MEDICAL 2018, DATED 02.04.2018, RELEASED ON THE BASIS OF NEET PG 2018 MERIT LIST. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE "CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS", ON PAGE 26 OF THE 'PROVISIONAL POPULATION TOTALS- KERALA'.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **rs.** **31/05/2018.** ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.** -------------------------------------------------- ## **W.P.(C) No.14289 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of May, 2018** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioners who are MBBS Graduate Doctors included in the ranked list of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test - Post Graduate (NEET-PG) conducted on 07.01.2018 by the 5[th] respondent, seeking to declare that once the selection process commences as per the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, as amended on 31.07.2017, and half of the Allotment process have been completed, the rule of the game cannot be changed in the middle, to the detriment of the existing remaining aspirants, who are similarly situated as that of the petitioners and admitted in the 1[st] Allotment, and also to declare that the action pursuant to the change of the rules is illegal, irrational and procedurally improper, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and for other consequential and allied reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: **W.P.(C) No.14289 of 2018** 2 2. Petitioners who are MBBS Graduate Doctors participated in the NEET-PG examination conducted on 07.01.2018 by the 5[th] respondent. The selection and allotment of aspirants in the State Quota seats of the above Post Graduate Degree Courses are done by the 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents, through a Ranked List and Allotment List on the basis of the NEET-PG 2018 Ranked List prepared by the National Board of Examinations. Separate seats are set apart for All India Quota and State Quota. According to the petitioners, till the 1[st] State Quota Allotment, in relation to the present admission process, the binding Regulation governing the NEET-PG and subsequent Ranked List, Allotment and Admissions was, the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, as amended on 31.07.2017. 3. However, after the 1[st] All India Allotment and the 1[st] State Quota Allotment, the above Regulations have been amended by the Medical Council of India, by Ext.P1 notification dated 05.04.2018, by changing the rule of the game, in the middle, thereby affecting the opportunities of the petitioners and hundreds of other MBBS Graduates, who were waiting for the Allotment with legitimate expectation. Prior to the said 3 **W.P.(C) No.14289 of 2018** amendment, in determining the merits of candidates who are in service of Government/public authority, weightage in the marks may be given by the Government/Competent Authority as an incentive at the rate of 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service in remote and/or difficult areas up to the maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in NEET. But, after the amendment, the words 'remote and/or difficult areas' have been amended and replaced with the words “remote and/or difficult areas or Rural areas”. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the term “Rural” has been defined for the said purpose as “all institutions outside the territorial area of Municipalities and Corporations will be included in the category of Rural Area”. This definition is a too irrational definition, when compared with the factual positions prevailing in the State of Kerala, is the contention. 4. It is also submitted that, from any angle, the inclusion of 'Rural Areas' along with remote and/or difficult areas is illegal, irrational, and procedurally improper and also unjust, unfair and unconstitutional. It is further submitted that, consequent to Ext.P1 amendment, the rule of the game is changed detrimentally affecting the applicants. It is also 4 **W.P.(C) No.14289 of 2018** submitted that, pursuant to Ext.P1, 1[st] respondent has further clarified the term “Rural Areas” as provided in Ext.P1 and also defined the Rural Areas in Kerala, _vide_ Ext.P2 Government Order dated 12.04.2018. This sudden change of rule of the game after the 1[st] Allotment, while the selection process for the 2[nd] Allotment was halfway through, to the complete detriment and the legitimate expectation of the petitioners and hundreds of other MD/MS aspirants. These are the background facts projected by the petitioners in order to secure the reliefs as is sought for in the writ petition. 5. A detailed counter affidavit filed by the State in W.P. (C) No.14884 of 2018 is filed in this writ petition with a memo to adopt the contentions raised therein. Apart from the other contentions raised, it is submitted that, it is trite law that, Medical Council of India Regulations amount to standards regarding medical education laid down in exercise of power conferred under Entry 66 of List I of Schedule 7 to the Constitution of India, and that these Regulations are binding on the States, which cannot make any Rules which are in conflict with or adversely impinging upon the Regulations specified above. Therefore, the State Government was legally **W.P.(C) No.14289 of 2018** 5 bound to take all consequential actions in pursuance of Ext.P1 notification issued by the Government of India. It was under the said circumstances, steps were taken to amend the Prospectus to that extent and modified the list accordingly. 6. It is also submitted that, as per the proviso to Regulation 9(4) of the Regulations, it is for the State Government to notify remote and/or difficult areas or rural areas. Insofar as remote and/or difficult areas are concerned, the apex court in Civil Appeal Nos.8179 to 8181 of 2017 [ _**State of Haryana and another v. Dr. Narender Soni and others**_ ] and ' _**State of U.P. v. Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan**_ ' [(2016) 9 SCC 749] held that, identification of remote and/or difficult areas could not be for the purpose of Medical Admission only and must be based on general criteria applicable to other Government Schemes also. 7. As per Ext.P2 Government Order, all institutions outside the jurisdictional area of Municipalities and Corporations are included in the category of rural areas, and such a definition for rural area is not for the purpose of Medical Admissions alone. The institutions now coming within the purview of institutions contemplated in rural area as per Ext.P2 ## **W.P.(C) No.14289 of 2018** 6 Government Order are the same institutions which are receiving various benefits under the National Rural Health Mission. Further, as per Sec.2(0) of the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, “Rural Area” means any area in a State except the area covered by any urban local body or a cantonment board established or constituted under any law for the time being in force. Thus, it is amply clear that the rural area contemplated in paragraph 7 of Ext.P2 Government Order is not solely for the purpose of Medical Admission alone and the said criteria is one applicable to other Government Schemes also. Therefore, the contention advanced is that, the description made with respect to rural areas cannot be said to be unreasonable or irrational. 8. That apart, it is submitted that, in the order passed by the apex court dated 03.05.2018 in W.P.(C) No.357 of 2018, it is held, reduction of chances of admission due to Ext.P1 amendment of the Regulations, 2000 does not entitle in violation of any right, much less fundamental right. It is also held thereunder that, there is no infringement of any legal right consequent to the change of method of counselling. It is also submitted that, vacancy may occur in seats for important **W.P.(C) No.14289 of 2018** 7 disciplines which may go to candidates with lower ranks in the merit list, it is only a fortuitous circumstance dependent on so many contingencies like the student who has been allotted seat in medicine, giving up the said seat and that seat falling vacant, and thereafter, the same being allotted to a candidate who is lower in rank in the merit list. The apex court in ' _**Aravind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. and others'**_ [(2001) 8 SCC 355] has held that, such freak circumstances cannot be the test of reasonableness of a rule. That apart, it is contended that, the State Government was constrained to issue Ext.P2 Government Order in the light of Ext.P1 amendment made to the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 6 to 15. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 10. The primary question to be considered is, whether any manner of interference is warranted to Ext.P2 order passed by the State Government in consequence to Ext.P1 **W.P.(C) No.14289 of 2018** 8 amendment made by the Medical Council of India to the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. It is true, after the 1[st] Allotment process, Ext.P2 notification is issued by the State Government, however, the same was done in accordance with the amendment made to the Regulations, 2000. By now it is trite that, legislations made under Entry 66 of List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India have primacy against any laws made by the State Government in respect of higher education. 11. The question was considered by the apex court in ' _**State of U.P. & Ors. v. Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan**_ ' [(2016) 9 SCC 749], and held that, the central laws have primacy over the State laws in accordance with Entry 66, List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the sole question to be considered is, whether the change of rule as per Ext.P2 issued by the Medical Council of India, incorporating all institutions outside the jurisdictional area of Municipalities and Corporations in the category of rural areas is justified or not? 12. As evident from Ext.P7, the Prospectus issued by the State Government for admission to Medical Post-graduate Degree/Diploma Courses - 2018-19, the Government may at **W.P.(C) No.14289 of 2018** 9 any time, on their own volition or otherwise, after calling the records of the case, revise any order passed by a subordinate authority, and the Prospectus is subject to Modification/Addition/Deletion as may be considered necessary by the Government and issued as executive orders/ notification. In that view of the matter, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that, the rule of the game was changed by the State Government as per Ext.P2 Government Order, cannot be sustained at all. 13. In my considered opinion, the Government have reserved such powers to meet any contingencies in Ext.P7 Prospectus. More so, Ext.P2 notification was issued by the State Government in the context of Ext.P1 amendment carried out on 05.04.2018 to Regulations, 2000. Therefore, it is evident that, the action of issuing Ext.P2 notification by the State Government is not a voluntary one, but under the compelled circumstance of primacy of the notification issued by the Medical Council of India, and also since primacy is upheld by the apex court in the judgment in ' _**Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan**_ ' ( _supra_ ). Moreover, the issue with respect to change of game of the rule was considered by the apex court in W.P. 10 **W.P.(C) No.14289 of 2018** (C) No.357 of 2018 and has passed an order on 03.05.2018, whereby the issue of change of rule of the game was considered and held that the petitioners have no legal right to attack such a change. 14. Moreover, learned counsel appearing for the additional respondents 6 to 15 has invited my attention to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.501 of 2018 and other connected cases dated 10.04.2018, to canvass, the proposition that the change of rule of the game in the light of Ext.P1 was considered and upheld. It is also pointed out that, the said judgment was under challenge before the apex court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.D14685/2018 and the S.L.P was dismissed as per order dated 26.04.2018, upholding the directions contained under paragraph 26 of the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which read thus: _“The admissions which are given pursuant to the notification dated 15.03.2018 up to 04.04.2018 will go on the basis of unamended Regulation 9 and from 05.04.2018, whenever post is vacant out of 688 will be governed by the amended regulation and the Government will act accordingly.”_ Therefore, according to the learned counsel, apex court has upheld the amendment of Regulations, 2000 and the 11 **W.P.(C) No.14289 of 2018** consequential action of the State Government. 15. It is also pointed out that, in ' _**Ashish Ranjan and others v. Union of India and others**_ ' [(2016) 11 SCC 225], the last date up to which students can be admitted/joined against vacancies arising due to any reason is fixed as 31.05.2018. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, if any interference is made by this Court at this stage of the proceedings, the admissions will be upset and the directions contained in the judgment in ' _**Ashish Ranjan and others'**_ ( _supra_ ) will be violated. 16. Even though learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition submitted that, the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court is not applicable in the context in question, I am of the considered opinion that, therein also, the action of the State Government _vis-a-vis_ the amendment of Regulations, 2000 was under consideration, and the action of the State Government was upheld, which in effect approved by the apex court as per its order in the Special Leave Petition. Even if the order may not be a binding precedent on this Court, but at the same time, this Court cannot be unmindful of the upholding of the directions contained in paragraph 26 of the Rajasthan High 12 **W.P.(C) No.14289 of 2018** Court quoted above. I am also of the considered opinion that the issue with respect to providing weightage marks was under the consideration of the Supreme Court in various of its judgments and the position is well settled. Therefore, I do not think that the petitioners have made out any case justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there being no illegality or arbitrariness. Resultantly, writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed. Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** St/30.05.2018