Kerala High Court Upholds NEET- PG Prospectus, Says State Can Decide Incentives To Be Offered To In-Service Candidates

Case: Dr. Vikas R.S v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Coram: Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly

Case No.: WA NO. 219 OF 2022

Court Observation: “In our view, it is for the State Government to decide the manner in which the service candidates are given the incentive, taking into account the larger public interest and the requirement of the respective departments of the Government in order to have the advantage of the services of Post Graduate Doctors.”

“So far as there is sufficient power vested with the State Government to decide the manner in which the incentives are given to the service candidates, the candidates are not at liberty to contend that they are entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Regulation 9(IV) of the Regulations 2000. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, Regulation 9(IV) of Regulations 2000 cannot be said to be binding absolutely on the State Government in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association (supra), wherein after considering Entry 25 of List III of the Constitution.”

“When a new prospectus is issued by the State Government for the year 2021-2022, the appellant is not at liberty to insist that he should get the benefits conferred under an erstwhile Government Order provided for the period 2018-2019 alone.”

Previous Posts

Patna High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Former Vice-Chancellor Of Magadha University In Corruption Case, Denies Pre-Arrest Bail

Extra-Judicial Confession Made By Co-Accused Could Be Admitted In Evidence Only For Corroboration: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Bail To Man Accused Of Kidnap-Murder Of 13 Year Old Boy

Taxpayers Have Independent Statutory Right To File A Reply To Show Cause Notice And Draft Assessment Order: Delhi High Court

Real Estate Appellate Authority Can’t Initiate Suo Moto Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Detention Order A Preventive Measure, Sense Of Urgency Is Must, Failure To Serve/ Detain At Earliest Possible Defeats Its Purpose: Delhi High Court

Child Is Not A Commodity, Parent’s Income & Better Education Prospects Not Sole Criteria For Deciding Custody: Chhattisgarh High Court

Defendant In A Plaint Cannot Insist That Plaintiff Should Sue A Third Party: Delhi High Court

Unlawful Possession Can’t Be Defended On The Ground That Eviction Clause In Statute Is Prospective In Nature: Orissa High Court

Company Tribunal Not A Labour Court Or Administrative Tribunal To Focus Entirely On Removal Of Director: Supreme Court In Tata-Mistry Case Download Judgement

Keywords

Kerala High Court, NEET- PG