Gauhati HC: DRT Has to Dispose of Application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act as per RDB Act  ||  Kerala HC: Showing or Waving Black Flag to a Person Cannot Amount to Defamation  ||  Del. HC: Merit Based Review of Arb. Award Involving Reappraisal of Factual Findings is Impermissible  ||  Del. HC: It is the Product and Not the Technology Used that Determines HSN Classification  ||  P&H HC: Provis. of Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen (First Amendment) Rules are Unconstitutional  ||  Cal HC: High Time that Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage be Read as Grounds of Desertion & Cruelty  ||  Supreme Court: Third Party Can File SLP Against Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Absolute Ownership in Property as Per HSA Can’t be Claimed by Woman with Limited Interest  ||  SC: Can’t Forego Fundamental Requirements of Election of Society in Absence of Specific Provisions  ||  SC: Special Efforts Should be Made to Identify Women Prisoners Eligible for Release u/s 479 of BNSS    

Rajendra Chaudhary and Ors. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (28 Aug 2019)

Regulations framed by MCI relating to conditions of service of Professors in Medical Colleges shall prevail over Service Rules framed by State

MANU/SC/1172/2019

Service

The controversy in present Appeals is regarding reservations to be applied for appointment by direct recruitment to the posts of Professor in Medical Colleges in Uttar Pradesh and enhancement of the maximum age limit from 45 years to 65 years. There was no direct recruitment to the posts of Professors in 12 Government Medical Colleges (Allopathy) for 12 years prior to 2015. An advertisement was issued on 21st December, 2015 by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission seeking applications for appointment by direct recruitment to 47 substantive vacant posts of Professors in various Allopathic Medical Colleges. The said advertisement was subject matter of challenge in a Writ Petition filed in the High Court.

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions by rejecting the submissions relating to the reservations and enhancement of the upper age limit. Hence, present Appeals.

The two points that fall for consideration in these Appeals are: a) Whether the advertisement impugned in the Writ Petition is violative of Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 ("the Reservation Act): and b) Whether enhancement of the upper age limit for appointment to the post of Professor by direct recruitment is contrary to the Uttar Pradesh Medical Colleges Teachers' Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2005 (Service Rules)

It is relevant to refer to a judgment of the High Court in Dr. Juhi Singhal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. which examined a challenge to the advertisement dated 21st December, 2015 which is the subject matter of present Appeals. The High Court upheld the notification by holding that, there is no infringement of the Service Rules.

A full Bench of the High Court considered the applicability of reservations to Scheduled Castes under the Reservation Act, as applicable to the aided institutions. It was held that, the Reservation Act cannot be pressed into service where the number of posts in the cadre are less than five. No error has been committed by the Respondents in not providing reservations for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of Professor in Government Medical Colleges. The unit of appointment is speciality/department and the number of posts available in each speciality/department is less than five. Category 'B' in Appendix 'A' of the Service Rules refers to direct recruitment which is the subject matter of the advertisement. The Appellants' contention that, the cadre of Professors in all the Departments put together has to be taken into account for providing reservations has rightly been rejected by the High Court.

Further, the decision to increase the upper age limit from 45 years to 65 years is not vitiated. The High Court rejected the challenge to the enhancement of upper age limit for direct recruitment to the post of Professor in Dr. Juhi Singhal v. State of U.P. and Anr. by holding that, the Regulations framed by the MCI would prevail over the Service Rules. In the said judgment, the High Court was of the view that, the Government Order dated 6th February, 2015 only supplements the Rules and does not supplant them. The High Court further observed that, the relaxation was done in view of the shortage of teachers in Medical Institutions who are qualified for appointment to the posts of Professors. The relaxation of the upper age limit was applicable only to those departments where 25 per cent or more posts were vacant and in respect of other departments, the State Government decided not to fill them up.

The Regulations framed by the MCI relating to the conditions of service of Professors in Medical Colleges shall prevail over the Service Rules framed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The posts of Professors in Government Medical Colleges being manned for 15 years prior to 2015 by unqualified persons indicate the distressing state of affairs of medical education in the State of Uttar Pradesh. To remedy a grave situation, the State has taken a decision to make appointments by increasing the maximum age limit. The sincere attempt made by the State to have qualified doctors holding the posts of Professors has not yielded any results due to the pendency of cases which are filed challenging the advertisement. The Respondents are directed to expedite the process of selection to the posts of Professors and make appointments at the earliest. Appeals dismissed.

Relevant : Dr. Juhi Singhal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Tags : APPOINTMENT   RESERVATION   AGE   ENHANCEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved