Factual Matrix 

In the Matter of Dr. Sandeep v. State of Maharashtra, An MBBS doctor filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution challenging the denial of his request to sit for the NEET-PG 2023 exam, despite the fact that he was qualified to receive the benefit of weighted marks as an in-service candidate after working in a rural area for more than three years. A recent MBBS graduate, the petitioner was hired on June 1 as a Medical Officer in Class 1 at the Rural Health Training Centre. On July 1, 2021, he began his fifth year of employment and was afterwards moved to the Primary Health Centre. The petitioner argued that he was entitled to weighted marks in the NEET-PG 2023 test since he had worked in rural regions for more than three years. The authorities, however, would not issue him a No-objection Certificate for taking the test. The petitioner demanded a declaration in his favour and contested the decision. According to a government resolution dated March 19, 2019, the authorities determined that a candidate in a comparable situation was qualified. The petitioner then applied to take the NEET-PG 2023 test and passed with 227 points in addition to an additional 30%. The petitioner claimed that articles 5.2 and 5.5 of the resolution were broken by the refusal to provide a NOC, and he asked the court to intervene to stop what he claimed was an arbitrary use of authority on the part of the authorities. The petitioner had not served the required three years on a permanent appointment, as mentioned in the judgement rejecting the NOC, the court emphasised.

Analysis of Court order 

The petitioner was not eligible for the benefits he claimed, the Division Bench of Justices Mangesh S. Patil and S.G. Chapalgaonkar of the Bombay High Court declared in dismissing the suit.

The Court determined that even though the petitioner had taken the NEET PG 2023 test, the issue of grace marks under clause 5.2 did not arise since he had not completed the minimum three years of service in the regular cadre or secured prior permission as needed under clauses 4.1 and 4.2. The Court made it clear that the petitioner was not eligible to receive any benefits, hence the instant petition was dismissed.

CASE NAME – Dr. Sandeep v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 3822 of 2023