Reservation in Medical College Recruitment: Supreme Court Upholds Uttar Pradesh Government’s Policy

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Dr. Professor Rajendra Chaudhary & Anr. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., examined the legality of the Uttar Pradesh government’s policy regarding reservations in direct recruitment for Professor posts in government medical colleges. The case also addressed the issue of enhancing the upper age limit for direct recruitment from 45 years to 65 years. The Court upheld the government’s stance, affirming that reservations could not be implemented where the number of posts was less than four in a specialty and ruled that the increase in age limit was justified to address the shortage of qualified professors.

Background of the Case

For over 12 years prior to 2015, there had been no direct recruitment for Professor posts in 12 government allopathic medical colleges in Uttar Pradesh. On December 21, 2015, the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) issued an advertisement inviting applications for 47 vacant Professor posts across various departments. The advertisement did not provide for reservations for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), or Other Backward Classes (OBC), and it enhanced the upper age limit for direct recruitment from 45 years to 65 years.

A group of petitioners challenged this advertisement before the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the non-inclusion of reservation violated the Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation for SC, ST, and OBC) Act, 1994. They also contended that the increase in the upper age limit was contrary to the Uttar Pradesh Medical Colleges Teachers’ Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2005. The High Court dismissed their writ petitions, leading the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

• Whether the exclusion of reservations in the direct recruitment process for Professor posts violated the Reservation Act of 1994.
• Whether the enhancement of the upper age limit for direct recruitment was contrary to the Service Rules of 2005.

Arguments by the Appellants (Petitioners)

The petitioners contended:

• The Reservation Act, 1994, mandated reservations in public services at the stage of direct recruitment.
• Under Section 3 of the Act, 21% of vacancies must be reserved for SCs, 2% for STs, and 27% for OBCs.
• The non-inclusion of reservation in the advertisement violated this statutory requirement.
• Enhancing the upper age limit from 45 to 65 years contradicted the Service Rules of 2005.
• The government could not modify the Service Rules through an executive order.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Uttar Pradesh)

The government defended its position on the following grounds:

• The Service Rules classified Professor posts into two categories: Category ‘A’ (75% of posts filled by promotion) and Category ‘B’ (25% of posts filled by direct recruitment).
• Reservation was to be applied at the department/specialty level and not across the entire cadre of Professors.
• Since the number of posts in each department was less than four, reservation could not be implemented as per established policy.
• The increase in the upper age limit was necessary to address the acute shortage of Professors in medical colleges.
• The policy was consistent with the Medical Council of India’s (MCI) guidelines, which set the retirement age at 70 years.

Supreme Court’s Observations

1. Reservation Cannot Be Applied to Small Cadres

The Court ruled that reservation could not be implemented in cases where the number of posts in a specialty was less than four:

“The unit of appointment is specialty/department-wise. The number of posts available in each specialty/department is less than five, making reservation inapplicable.”

2. Validity of Age Limit Enhancement

The Court upheld the increase in the upper age limit for direct recruitment, stating:

“The decision to increase the upper age limit from 45 years to 65 years is not vitiated. It is in line with the MCI’s regulations, which prescribe a maximum age of 70 years for Professors in medical institutions.”

3. Precedent from Allahabad High Court

The Court noted that the Allahabad High Court, in Dr. Juhi Singhal & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., had upheld the same recruitment policy:

“The High Court correctly ruled that the reservation provision applies only if the number of posts in a unit is four or more.”

4. Necessity to Address Faculty Shortage

The Court acknowledged the severe shortage of Professors in government medical colleges, stating:

“The state has struggled to recruit Professors for over a decade. Increasing the upper age limit ensures greater participation from experienced professionals.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The exclusion of reservation in the advertisement was legally valid, as the number of posts in each specialty was less than four.
• The enhancement of the upper age limit from 45 to 65 years was justified and did not violate the Service Rules.
• The government’s policy to expand the eligibility criteria for Professors was upheld.
• The appeals were dismissed, affirming the Allahabad High Court’s decision.

Conclusion

This judgment clarifies the implementation of reservations in small cadres and upholds the government’s authority to modify service conditions for efficient administration. The ruling ensures that medical colleges can recruit qualified Professors while adhering to reservation policies appropriately. The decision is a landmark ruling on balancing social justice measures with administrative feasibility.

Petitioner Name: Dr. Professor Rajendra Chaudhary & Anr..
Respondent Name: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 28-08-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Dr. Professor Rajend vs The State of Uttar P Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-08-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Education Related Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category