Supreme Court orders MP Govt. to save PG medical seat for woman doctor who served in State's tribal, naxalite villages

The Supreme Court on Monday granted interim relief to a doctor who served the State of Madhya Pradesh for over 11 years in its tribal and naxalite villages [Rajni Shende vs State of Madhya Pradesh and ors]..A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant ordered that one seat for postgraduate medical course be kept reserved for the petitioner and proceeded to issue notice to the State and the National Medical Commission in the matter."Till the next date of listing one seat in MS Obstetrics and Gynecology in GMC, Bhopal shall be kept vacant to abide by the final directions of this Court" the order said.The petitioner, Dr Rajni Shende, was denied the benefit of admissions to State in-service candidate quota. She approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court which declined her relief prompting her to approach the apex court.Shende had claimed incentivised benefit of 30 per cent reservation and incentive marks each made available to all such doctors posted in remote or difficult areas, but she was denied the same on the ground that the No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the concerned department was not forwarded in time to the counselling authority.She had sent the NOC two days before the first round of allotment.She moved the High Court stating that the State government had given more weightage to external factors than the essential ones and denied her the benefit on technical ground for no fault of her own.The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that forwarding the NOC was a prerequisite to claim the incentivised benefits in question. It relied on Rules 6 and 14 of the state's 2018 Admission Rules to say that she could not be given further entitlement towards the reservation. .When the appeal came up before the Supreme Court, Justice Chandrachud orally observed that it was a "hard case" and the Court was being moved sentimentally for its indulgence in the matter. The counsel for the petitioner submitted before the top court that it was held in the decisions in Charles K. Skaria & Ors. v. Dr. C. Mathew & Ors. and FCI v. Rimjhim, that a technical requirement that is a mere formality cannot come in the way claiming substantive benefits. The High Court had erred on facts by observing that she was never registered with the State at all, when her registration receipt and allotment letter was on record. The High Court took an approach which was "hyper-technical", it was contended.The counsel for the petitioner also pointed out to the Supreme Court that despite earlier interim orders by the High Court, the State had not blocked a seat she was claiming, yet a seat was vacant after the mop-up rounds.The matter is likely to be heard again on April 18..Advocates Siddharth R Gupta, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Shivam Baghel, Sunita Gupta, Pranjal Agarwal, and Dhruv Tank appeared for the petitioner. [Read Order].Supreme Court comes to the aid of Dalit student who cracked IIT JEE but missed out on seat due to non-payment of fees