Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from two writ petitions filed by in-service medical officers seeking admission to postgraduate medical courses under the in-service quota. The petitioners challenged Government Resolutions dated 19-03-2019 and Corrigendum dated 26-03-2020 issued by the State of Maharashtra, which retrospectively reduced the additional incentive marks for service in difficult, hilly, and rural areas from 10% per year to as low as 4% for rural areas. Under the earlier Government Resolutions dated 20-05-2010 and 03-05-2011, in-service candidates serving in remote, difficult, or rural areas were entitled to 10% additional marks per year, up to a maximum of 30%, to be added to their NEET scores for postgraduate admissions. The Medical Council of India's Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, as amended in 2009 and 2018, empowered the State Government to allocate such incentive marks. The petitioners had served in Primary Health Centres classified as remote or rural under the 2010 GR, and they had executed bonds anticipating the 10% benefit. The impugned 2019 GR, issued pursuant to the 2018 MCI amendment, introduced a new marking system based on facilities available in the area (tribal, naxalite, hilly, rural), resulting in lower percentages. The Corrigendum dated 26-03-2020 gave the 2019 policy retrospective effect for service rendered from 2010 to 2019. The petitioners argued that they had legitimate expectations of 10% marks and that the retrospective reduction deprived them of vested rights. The respondents contended that the new policy was in accordance with the MCI amendment and classified areas based on objective criteria. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the impugned government resolutions could not be given retrospective effect. It relied on the principle that subsequent policy, in the form of subordinate legislation or otherwise, detrimental to citizens or beneficiaries of earlier policy cannot be retrospective. The Court also found that the impugned resolutions violated principles of legitimate expectations because the petitioners had served in difficult areas relying on the earlier incentive. The provided judgment excerpt does not include a formal operative order, but the Court's reasoning clearly indicates that the retrospective application of the 2019 GR and 2020 Corrigendum was held impermissible, and the petitioners' cases would be governed by the 2010 and 2011 GRs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Retrospective Operation of Subordinate Legislation - Subsequent policy detrimental cannot be retroactive - Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 - Petitioners rendered service in remote/difficult/rural areas under GRs 2010 and 2011 expecting 10% incentive marks per year; impugned GRs dated 19-03-2019 and Corrigendum dated 26-03-2020 applied retrospectively reduced marks to 4% for rural areas; Held that subsequent policy detrimental to beneficiaries of earlier policy cannot be given retrospective effect (Paras 16-18). B) Administrative Law - Legitimate Expectations - Protection of accrued service benefits - Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 - Petitioners served at remote/difficult/rural locations with legitimate expectation of 10% additional marks per year; impugned GRs hit by principles of legitimate expectations; Held that respondents ought not to have issued impugned GRs with retrospective effect (Para 19). C) Medical Education Law - Incentive Marks for In-Service Doctors - State classification of remote/difficult/rural areas - Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 - 2010 and 2011 GRs allowed uniform 10% additional marks per year, while 2019 GR introduced marking system based on facilities (tribal, naxalite, hilly, rural) with reduced percentages; Held that new policy cannot be applied retrospectively to service already rendered (Paras 3-10, 15-19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Government Resolutions dated 19-03-2019 and Corrigendum dated 26-03-2020 can be given retrospective effect to deprive in-service doctors of previously accrued 10% incentive marks per year under Government Resolutions dated 20-05-2010 and 03-05-2011; whether the impugned retrospective policy violates principles of legitimate expectations.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the provided excerpt; the Court's recorded reasoning holds that retrospective application of the impugned GRs is impermissible and that the 2010 and 2011 GRs should govern.
Law Points
- Subsequent policy detrimental to beneficiaries of earlier policy cannot be given retrospective effect
- provisions penal in nature cannot be retrospective
- legitimate expectations of in-service doctors for incentive marks protected
- State power to allocate additional marks up to 30% under MCI Regulations cannot be used to retrospectively reduce accrued benefits
