Aastha Thakur
Published on: 30 July 2022 at 18:45 IST
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by three doctors who sought the quashing of Regulation 9(3) of the Postgraduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations 2018, in order to remove the mandatory eligibilty criteria of minimum marks of 50th percentile for the admission to postgraduate courses.
The Bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramoniam Prasad rejected the plea and said that, “the question of quashing the statutory provision in the peculiar circumstances of the case does not arise merely because a large number of seats are lying vacant.”
The Court was of the opinion that it is not fair for this Court to interfere in the standards duly and diligently set up by the governing authority. As it will only create havoc in society as the medicinal stream – directly deals with life and death and therefore it is not consciously correct to issue a mandamus in this matter.
The counsel of petitioner submitted that on account of the percentile system, as the candidates have not been securing the 50th percentile, its causing a loss to good doctors from obtaining postgraduate qualifications. Resulting in huge shortage of doctors who are specialists in the subject of court noted that the petitioners’ primary grievance is that the percentile system prescribed under Regulation 9(3) of the amended Regulation is a faulty system as, on account of the percentile system, a large number of seats are lying vacant even though candidates who are efficient and willing are available.
It has also been stated that there is a huge shortage of doctors who are specialists in the subject of Pathology, Microbiology and Anesthesiology, and a large number of seats are vacant on account of a faulty percentile system, therefore, the amendment in the Regulations deserves to be declared as ultra vires, the court noted.
The Court said that, “There can’t be any compromise on the issue of quality of doctors/ specialists as it involves the risk of human lives. Resultantly, no case for interference is made out in the matter.”
Therefore, the Court said it cannot issue a mandamus directing the respondents and dismissed the PIL.