{"id":262607,"date":"2022-03-25T15:35:16","date_gmt":"2022-03-25T10:05:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=262607"},"modified":"2022-03-25T18:46:34","modified_gmt":"2022-03-25T13:16:34","slug":"neet-super-specialty-2021-seats-in-service-candidates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/cover-story-articles\/il-feature-news\/neet-super-specialty-2021-seats-in-service-candidates\/","title":{"rendered":"Breather for Tamil Nadu"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
In a major victory for Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court<\/a> refused to stay its decision allocating 50% super-specialty seats in government medical colleges to NEET-qualified in-service candidates in the state. In-service candidates are those doctors who are employed with government and semi-government bodies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court was hearing a batch of petitions and appeals against a notification issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department of Tamil Nadu that provided this reservation. The petitioners, included N Karthikeyan, and are candidates who have appeared in NEET-Super Specialty-2021 which was conducted on January 10, 2022. They were aggrieved by the impugned order and stated that it was in clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as it creates an impermissible classification, contrary to the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cVarious states have been attempting to impose different quotas on super specialty seats in Government Medical Colleges within their jurisdiction. The NEET-SS is a national examination conducted in pursuance of the mandate to coordinate standards of education across the country,\u201d the petition said. The petitioners had prayed that the apex court test the validity of the impugned provisions by the government of Tamil Nadu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Also Read: <\/strong>Road Rage case: Supreme Court reserves order in review plea against conviction of Congress leader Navjot Sidhu<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The petitioners had also submitted that no reservation can be created mid-way through the examination process. Hence, they sought the Tamil Nadu government order of November 7, 2020, to be declared as unconstitutional as it was violative of Article 14. They also sought an order that admissions pursuant to NEET Super Specialty 2021 be conducted without providing reservations for in-service doctors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tamil Nadu had contended that taking away the power of the state to provide for sources of admission would violate the federal structure and lead to complete centralisation of policy-making in areas where the state is competent to make laws and policy. It further contended that \u201cpublic health and hospitals are covered by Entry 6, List II (State list) in the Constitution\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tamil Nadu had relied upon a constitution bench judgement of the apex court in 2021\u2014Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association vs Union of India\u2014where it was held that it was valid for a state to act under Entry List III to enact special provisions for admissions for in-service doctors in medical courses, including post-graduate courses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Also Read: <\/strong>Supreme Court dismisses SLP that could have impacted Kashmiri student\u2019s MBBS studies in Bangladesh<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n In Chennai, Chief Minister MK Stalin said the Supreme Court\u2019s order was an answer to the BJP government at the centre. \u201cIt is an outstanding judgment. Social justice will triumph in the fight against NEET, which has deprived rural students of medical education. The DMK government will continue to wage a legal battle for it,\u201d read a statement released by Stalin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The apex court on April 27, 2020, had directed that counselling for admission to super-specialty medical courses for 2020\u00ad2021 shall proceed without providing for reservations to in-service doctors. On March 14 this year, the Court had reserved its orders, having heard some top lawyers, including Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave, Shyam Divan, and Gopal Sankarnarayanan, speak for the petitioners. Senior Advocates CS Vaidyanathan, P Wilson and Additional Advocate General (AAG)\u2008Amit Anand Tiwari represented Tamil Nadu, while ASG Aishwarya Bhati was for the Union government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe are of the view that no case is made out for continuing the interim protection which was granted for the academic year 2020-2021 by interim order dated November 27, 2020. Thus, we reject the prayer in that regard. Needless to say, that the state of Tamil Nadu would be at liberty to continue counselling for the academic year. By taking into consideration reservations provided by the state,\u201d decided the bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also clarified that the order is for the limited purpose of considering whether the interim order dated November 27, 2020, which was granted for 2020-2021 should also be continued for 2021\u00ad2022 or not. It further clarified that the order was being passed on prima facie considerations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n