High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Dr. Amit Ranjan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health/Family Welfare/Medical Edu And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kartikey Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava,Pushpila Bisht Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Sri Kartikey Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite party no. 1, Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3.

2. After amendment of the writ petition, following relieves have been prayed, which reads as under:- "(1) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to allow the petitioner to participate in furtherance of the advertisement dated 22.02.2025 (II) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to consider the Petitioner's eligibility in accordance with the relaxation granted by Respondent No. 3 vide notification dated 01.04.2025; (III) In the alternative, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 3 to grant a similar relaxation as granted vide notification dated 01.04.2024 in respect of the advertisement dated 22.02.2025 as well; (V) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the advertisement dated 22.02.2025 to the extent that it requires the completion of BCMET training as on the date of cut-off (copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1 to the instant Writ Petition)"

3. At the very outset, Ms Pushpila Bisht has raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition by submitting that the last date to submit the online application was 30th March 2025, but the writ petition has been filed on 15th April 2025, i.e., after 15 days from the cut-off date. She has also submitted that after the amendment of the writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the advertisement, however, he has not challenged the qualifications pursuant thereto the petitioner could not apply for the post. She has also submitted that after filing this writ petition and during the pendency thereof, the National Medical Commission provided instruction to the Court vide letter dated 22nd April 2025 to the effect that the present petitioner may be given exemption to complete the BCMET training within the next two years in the same manner such relaxation has already been given by the letter dated 20th March 2025 for the appointed candidates. She has submitted that if the National Medical Commission (NMC) was willing to provide the same relaxation to the petitioner, which has already been provided to the appointed candidates, such relaxation could have been provided earlier, to be more precise on or before cut-off date, so that the appropriate corrigendum to that effect could have issued for in-rem. She has further submitted that if any relaxation is given to any particular person, it may likely to open a pandora box and in that case the selection in question pursuant to the advertisement may not be completed. She has drawn attention of this Court towards (Annexure No. CA2) of the short counter affidavit to show that pursuant to the advertisement in question, the date of interview has been declared for the particular departments, such interview would start with effect from 6th May 2025 and will commence up to 23rd May 2025. The department for which the petitioner is willing to participate, the date of interview is 20th May 2025. She has also submitted that the director of Ram Manohar Lohia Institute Institute of Medical Sciences has himself sent an e- mail to the NMC on 19th March 2025, indicating therein the candidates who were not having BCRB or BCMET may be given relaxation, but no prompt reply was given by NMC till the cut-off date, i.e., 30th March 2025, though the clarification came in favour of the petitioner only vide letter dated 22nd April 2025. She has lastly submitted that there is a provision of appeal under Teachers Eligibility Qualification in Medical Institution Regulation, 2022, (Annexure No. 3) Regulation 13 clearly provides that a teacher may apply to the National Medical Commission through the concerned head of the institution and university for determination of his eligibility for teaching position in the medical institution, in case of ambiguity and controversy. She has submitted that since on account of the condition of eligibility, the alleged controversy arose, and if the petitioner is aggrieved from such controversy, he could have filed an appeal under Regulation 13 of the aforesaid regulation. She has submitted in the writ petition petition, the eligibility so fixed by means of advertisement has not been assailed but by filing rejoined affidavit, those pleas have been taken by the petitioner.

4. On being asked Sri Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, as to why the controversy has not been clarified earlier, to be more precise before the cut-off date inasmuch as for the selected candidates, such conditions have been relaxed, but for the candidates who have applied for selection, such relaxation has not been given despite the fact that the Director of RMLIMS had sent an email on 19th March 2025, Sri Ganesh Kumar Srivastava could not explain the reason. However, he has stated that there is a procedure to relax some condition so the prompt action could not be taken. Sri Srivastava has further submitted that by means of letter dated 22nd April 2025, such condition has been relaxed for the petitioner.

5. Sri Kartikey Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is a meritorious candidate presently serving as Associate Professor at AIIMS Gorakhpur and except the condition having course of BCMET and BCBR, he was completing all requisite conditions. The course of BCMET is only for three days and BCBR is an online course so on account of those conditions, the petitioner should not be debarred to appear in the selection process. He has also submitted that as soon as the petitioner could know about the decision dated 20th March 2025 taken by the NMC, conditions for appointed candidates circulated on 01.04.2025, he immediately filed this petition, but it took some time to prepare the petition.

6. As per Sri Dubey, the present case is a case of hostile discrimination, having no cogent explanation to that effect inasmuch as the same condition has been relaxed for appointed candidates, but such relaxation has not been provided to the candidates who are to appear in the selection process. Therefore, the aforesaid inaction on the part of the authorities is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7. Be that as it may, since, the last date has expired on 30th March 2025, and this petition has been filed after 15 days of the cut-off date and the date of interview has been fixed pursuant to the advertisement in question, therefore, I am not inclined to pass any order quashing the advertisement in question or staying the selection process. However, I must observe that the NMC should have taken prompt response on the email of the Director of the institute dated 19th March 2025, whereby, such relaxation was requested. Had prompt decision been taken by the NMC on or before 30th March 2025, the controversy in question would have not arisen. Providing relaxation to the petitioner only may likely to open the pandora box and in that situation, the selection in question may likely to stall and it will cause serious prejudice to the public at large inasmuch as the proper strength of the Doctors is always required for any hospital and the institution in question caters the needs of so many patients who require normal and specialized treatment.

8. However, NMC being an appellate authority under Regulation 13 of the aforesaid regulation may take appropriate decision on the appeal of the petitioner, and the grievance of the petitioner may be redressed by the Authority, therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue, I hereby dispose of this petition, finally at the admission stage, giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Regulation 13 to the NMC with expedition, preferably within a period of 48 hours, and if such an appeal is preferred by the petitioner, the same may be adjudicated and decided finally by the NMC within a period of four days strictly in accordance with law. If the petitioner prefers an appeal on before 7th May 2025, the same shall be decided by 12th May 2025, so that if any positive decision is taken in the case of the petitioner any needful steps could be taken by the petitioner as well as the authorities before the date of interview, i.e., that is 20th May 2025 and the decision thereof shall be intimated to the petitioner fourth with. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Anurag ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Dr. Amit Ranjan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health/Family Welfare/Medical Edu And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kartikey Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava,Pushpila Bisht Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Sri Kartikey Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite party no. 1, Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3.

2. After amendment of the writ petition, following relieves have been prayed, which reads as under:- "(1) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to allow the petitioner to participate in furtherance of the advertisement dated 22.02.2025 (II) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to consider the Petitioner's eligibility in accordance with the relaxation granted by Respondent No. 3 vide notification dated 01.04.2025; (III) In the alternative, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 3 to grant a similar relaxation as granted vide notification dated 01.04.2024 in respect of the advertisement dated 22.02.2025 as well; (V) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the advertisement dated 22.02.2025 to the extent that it requires the completion of BCMET training as on the date of cut-off (copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1 to the instant Writ Petition)"

3. At the very outset, Ms Pushpila Bisht has raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition by submitting that the last date to submit the online application was 30th March 2025, but the writ petition has been filed on 15th April 2025, i.e., after 15 days from the cut-off date. She has also submitted that after the amendment of the writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the advertisement, however, he has not challenged the qualifications pursuant thereto the petitioner could not apply for the post. She has also submitted that after filing this writ petition and during the pendency thereof, the National Medical Commission provided instruction to the Court vide letter dated 22nd April 2025 to the effect that the present petitioner may be given exemption to complete the BCMET training within the next two years in the same manner such relaxation has already been given by the letter dated 20th March 2025 for the appointed candidates. She has submitted that if the National Medical Commission (NMC) was willing to provide the same relaxation to the petitioner, which has already been provided to the appointed candidates, such relaxation could have been provided earlier, to be more precise on or before cut-off date, so that the appropriate corrigendum to that effect could have issued for in-rem. She has further submitted that if any relaxation is given to any particular person, it may likely to open a pandora box and in that case the selection in question pursuant to the advertisement may not be completed. She has drawn attention of this Court towards (Annexure No. CA2) of the short counter affidavit to show that pursuant to the advertisement in question, the date of interview has been declared for the particular departments, such interview would start with effect from 6th May 2025 and will commence up to 23rd May 2025. The department for which the petitioner is willing to participate, the date of interview is 20th May 2025. She has also submitted that the director of Ram Manohar Lohia Institute Institute of Medical Sciences has himself sent an e- mail to the NMC on 19th March 2025, indicating therein the candidates who were not having BCRB or BCMET may be given relaxation, but no prompt reply was given by NMC till the cut-off date, i.e., 30th March 2025, though the clarification came in favour of the petitioner only vide letter dated 22nd April 2025. She has lastly submitted that there is a provision of appeal under Teachers Eligibility Qualification in Medical Institution Regulation, 2022, (Annexure No. 3) Regulation 13 clearly provides that a teacher may apply to the National Medical Commission through the concerned head of the institution and university for determination of his eligibility for teaching position in the medical institution, in case of ambiguity and controversy. She has submitted that since on account of the condition of eligibility, the alleged controversy arose, and if the petitioner is aggrieved from such controversy, he could have filed an appeal under Regulation 13 of the aforesaid regulation. She has submitted in the writ petition petition, the eligibility so fixed by means of advertisement has not been assailed but by filing rejoined affidavit, those pleas have been taken by the petitioner.

4. On being asked Sri Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, as to why the controversy has not been clarified earlier, to be more precise before the cut-off date inasmuch as for the selected candidates, such conditions have been relaxed, but for the candidates who have applied for selection, such relaxation has not been given despite the fact that the Director of RMLIMS had sent an email on 19th March 2025, Sri Ganesh Kumar Srivastava could not explain the reason. However, he has stated that there is a procedure to relax some condition so the prompt action could not be taken. Sri Srivastava has further submitted that by means of letter dated 22nd April 2025, such condition has been relaxed for the petitioner.

5. Sri Kartikey Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is a meritorious candidate presently serving as Associate Professor at AIIMS Gorakhpur and except the condition having course of BCMET and BCBR, he was completing all requisite conditions. The course of BCMET is only for three days and BCBR is an online course so on account of those conditions, the petitioner should not be debarred to appear in the selection process. He has also submitted that as soon as the petitioner could know about the decision dated 20th March 2025 taken by the NMC, conditions for appointed candidates circulated on 01.04.2025, he immediately filed this petition, but it took some time to prepare the petition.

6. As per Sri Dubey, the present case is a case of hostile discrimination, having no cogent explanation to that effect inasmuch as the same condition has been relaxed for appointed candidates, but such relaxation has not been provided to the candidates who are to appear in the selection process. Therefore, the aforesaid inaction on the part of the authorities is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7. Be that as it may, since, the last date has expired on 30th March 2025, and this petition has been filed after 15 days of the cut-off date and the date of interview has been fixed pursuant to the advertisement in question, therefore, I am not inclined to pass any order quashing the advertisement in question or staying the selection process. However, I must observe that the NMC should have taken prompt response on the email of the Director of the institute dated 19th March 2025, whereby, such relaxation was requested. Had prompt decision been taken by the NMC on or before 30th March 2025, the controversy in question would have not arisen. Providing relaxation to the petitioner only may likely to open the pandora box and in that situation, the selection in question may likely to stall and it will cause serious prejudice to the public at large inasmuch as the proper strength of the Doctors is always required for any hospital and the institution in question caters the needs of so many patients who require normal and specialized treatment.

8. However, NMC being an appellate authority under Regulation 13 of the aforesaid regulation may take appropriate decision on the appeal of the petitioner, and the grievance of the petitioner may be redressed by the Authority, therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue, I hereby dispose of this petition, finally at the admission stage, giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Regulation 13 to the NMC with expedition, preferably within a period of 48 hours, and if such an appeal is preferred by the petitioner, the same may be adjudicated and decided finally by the NMC within a period of four days strictly in accordance with law. If the petitioner prefers an appeal on before 7th May 2025, the same shall be decided by 12th May 2025, so that if any positive decision is taken in the case of the petitioner any needful steps could be taken by the petitioner as well as the authorities before the date of interview, i.e., that is 20th May 2025 and the decision thereof shall be intimated to the petitioner fourth with. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Anurag ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench