Dr. Jnanesh Chowdery Jyesta vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 9994 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Dr. Jnanesh Chowdery Jyesta vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 November, 2024

Author: R Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R Raghunandan Rao

                                    1
                                                                      HCJ &RRR,J
                                               W.P.Nos.1762, 18017 & 19478/2024


APHC010345662024
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI                          [3446]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

              THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
                  TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                 PRESENT

      HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

             WRIT PETITION NO: 17652, 18017 & 19478 of 2024

Between:

Bolla Mounika and Others                                  ...PETITIONER(S)

                                  AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others                  ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. P BADRINATH

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW

2. S PRANATHI

3. Tata Venkata Sridevi,Standing Counsel For Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences

WRIT PETITION NO: 18017/2024

Between:

Dr Ravi Kumar Pasupuleti and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

HCJ &RRR,J W.P.Nos.1762, 18017 & 19478/2024

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. P THIRUMALA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES IV

2. S PRANATHI

3. Tata Venkata Sridevi,Standing Counsel For Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences

WRIT PETITION NO: 19478/2024

Between:

Dr. JnaneshChowderyJyesta ...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. GHANTA SRIDHAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW

2. S PRANATHI

3. Tata Venkata Sridevi,Standing Counsel For Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences

HCJ &RRR,J W.P.Nos.1762, 18017 & 19478/2024

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:

(per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

As all these writ petitions arise out of the same issues, they are

being disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. Heard Sarvasri P. Badrinath, P. Thirumala Rao and Ghanta

Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned G.P.

for Medical, Health and Family Welfare, appearing for respondent No.1,

Smt. T.K. Sridevi, learned standing counsel appearing for Dr. NTR

University of Health Sciences-respondent No.2 and Sri S. Vivek Chandra

Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for National Medical

Council-respondent No.3.

3. The petitioners, in all these cases, are Doctors, who are

working with the State Government. The petitioners, on account of their

service as medical officers, in different places, in the State of Andhra

Pradesh, are entitled to be treated as in-service candidates in terms of

the A.P. Medical Colleges (Admission into P.G. Medical Courses) Rules,

1997 (for short „P.G. Rules). The petitioners, by virtue of such inclusion,

would be entitled to reservation of seats in the P.G Medical Courses

available in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The P.G. Rules, by virtue of

amendment,vide G.O.Ms.No.150, dated 11.12.2021, provided for

reservation of 30% of seats in clinical and 50% of seats in non-clinical, to

HCJ &RRR,J W.P.Nos.1762, 18017 & 19478/2024

the in-service candidates. Subsequently, a Committee had been

constituted to go into the question of the percentage of seats that should

be reserved for in-service candidates. This Committee is said to have

given certain recommendations, on the basis of which the State

Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.85, dated 20.07.2024, amending

Rule 3 of the P.G. Rules. By virtue of this amendment, the percentage of

P.G. seats reserved for in-service candidates was reduced from 30% in

clinical seats to 15% and from 50% non-clinical seats to 30%.

4. The petitioners, who are in-service candidates, being

aggrieved by this reduction in the reservation of seats, have approached

this Court by way of the present set of writ petitions.

5. The contentions of the petitioners are:-

a) In view of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in

Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and Ors., vs. Union of India and

Ors., 1 , reservation of seats in P.G. Medical Courses, for in-service

Doctors, is constitutionally permissible and required.

b) In view of the aforesaid declaration of law by the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court, the in-service Doctors are entitled for reservation and

such reservation cannot be changed.

(2021) 6 SCC 568

HCJ &RRR,J W.P.Nos.1762, 18017 & 19478/2024

c) The reservation provided for the in-service candidates at the

time when the notification for conduct of NEET PG examination, 2024

had been issued, cannot be changed for that year. Any such change

would amount to "a change of Rule midway".

d) The judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sushil

Kumar Pandey and Ors., vs. High Court of Jharkhand and Anr.,2 and

Sivanandan C.T. and Ors., vs. High Court of Kerala and Ors.,3 prohibited

any such variation in the percentage of reservation.

5. It is contended that the notification for NEET PG

Examination was issued on 16.04.2024. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.85,

changing the percentage of reservation, was issued on 20.07.2024.

Thereafter, the notification for counselling under competent authority

quota for P.G. Medical Courses was issued on 27.09.2024. It is

contended that the recruitment process had commenced from

16.04.2024 with the issuance of the notification for NEET PG

Examination. There could not be any change in the percentage of

reservations, once such a notification has been issued. The judgment of

the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sivanandan C.T. and Ors., vs. High Court

of Kerala and Ors.,andSushil Kumar Pandey and Ors., vs. High Court of

Jharkhand and Anr.,are pressed into service to contend that any such

change would violate the principle "no change in Rule midway".

(2024) 6 SCC 162

(2024) 3 SCC 799

HCJ &RRR,J W.P.Nos.1762, 18017 & 19478/2024

Consequently, the change would have to be set aside by striking down

G.O.Ms.No.85 dated 20.07.2024.

6. It is further contended that the in-service candidates, by

virtue of G.O.Ms.No.150, dated 11.12.2021, had been given reservation

of 30% seats in clinical and 50% seats in non-clinical. The in-service

candidates were entitled to the legitimate expectation that such

percentage of seats would not be altered at any stage. It is contended

that apart from the question of legitimate expectation, any sudden

change in the Rules would amount to an arbitrary and unpredictable

change, which is antithetical to Rule of Law.

7. The respondents would contend that the reduction in

percentage of P.G. seats was done after a proper review of the

requirement of the Government. It was pointed out that certain non-

clinical seats were wholly irrelevant to the requirement of the

Government, as such non-clinical courses had no role in the services

being provided by the Government. Similarly, there was a reduction in

clinical seats due to the reduced requirement for such qualifications for

the medical officers working in the State.

8. Apart from this, it is contended that the percentage of

reservation prior to 2021 was far lower and had been increased only in

2021. It is contended that fixing the percentage of reservation would be

the prerogative of the State and any increase or reduction of such

HCJ &RRR,J W.P.Nos.1762, 18017 & 19478/2024

percentage would not amount to violation of the judgment of the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and Ors., vs.

Union of India and Ors.

9. In Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and Ors., vs.

Union of India and Ors., the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was considering the

question of whether reservation of seats of in-service candidates was

permissible. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, after considering various

aspects, had held that the State was entitled to reserve certain seats for

medical officers working in the State service. However, this judgment

cannot be extended to mean that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had

directed that there should always be reservation for in-service

candidates.

10. In Sushil Kumar Pandey and Ors., vs. High Court of

Jharkhand and Anr., the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while considering the

change of Rule requiring 50% marks in aggregate for both main

examination and viva voce for recruitment of District Judges, had held

that such a change, after issuing the notification calling for applications,

was not permissible. This view was taken on the ground that the original

notification had not stipulated any such requirement while this

additional stipulation was brought in, after the recruitment process had

commenced. In the present case, the notification issued for conduct of

NEET PG Examination, 2024 did not contain any stipulation as to the

HCJ &RRR,J W.P.Nos.1762, 18017 & 19478/2024

percentage of reservation available to in-service candidates. The

notification, merely informed, both regular candidates and in-service

candidates, that an entrance examination would be conducted. The

enhanced reservation provided under G.O.Ms.No.150, dated 11.12.2021

was reduced by G.O.Ms.No.85 dated 2-0.07.2024. It is only after the said

reduction had been notifiedthat the prospectus for allotment of seats

had been issued on 27.09.2024. It is only in this prospectus that the

percentage of reservation was set out, by referring to G.O.Ms.No.85

dated 20.07.2024. The process of allotment of seats commenced only

from the date of the notification of the prospectus calling for

applications for P.G. medical seats. In view of the above facts, it cannot

be held that there was "a change of Rule midway". This Court while in

respectful agreement with the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court, in the above cases, would have to hold that the said

principle would not be applicable to the peculiar facts of this case.

11. The petitioners have also relied upon the judgment of the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sivanandan C.T. and Ors., vs. High Court of

Kerala and Ors. In this case, notifications had been issued for

recruitment of District and Sessions Judges including Additional Judges

in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service. Thereafter, the selection

process was taken up and the candidates were subjected to a main

examination as well as a viva voce. After completion of viva voce, the

HCJ &RRR,J W.P.Nos.1762, 18017 & 19478/2024

Administrative Committee resolved to apply minimum cut off marks

prescribed for written examination as a qualifying criteria for viva voce

also. It was this additional stipulation, brought about by the

Administrative Committee, after the viva voce had been conducted, that

was struck down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. Such a situation does

not arise in the present case, as the reduction of percentage of reserved

seats, for in-service candidates, was notified much prior to the

notification for counseling process.

12. In the circumstances, these writ petitions are devoid of

merit and the same are accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order

as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J JS.

HCJ &RRR,J W.P.Nos.1762, 18017 & 19478/2024

HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

W.P.Nos.17652, 18017 & 19478 of 2024

(per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

7th November, 2024 JS