Case Background
The petitioner is a government Medical Officer in the State of Bihar. He holds MBBS and MD degrees and has been serving in the Bihar Health Service since 2000.
In 2009, the State Government invited applications from Medical Officers to prepare a panel of Senior Residents/Tutors for tenure posts in different medical colleges. The petitioner applied through the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bhojpur. He opted for several established medical colleges including Nalanda Medical College, PMCH Patna, SKMC Muzaffarpur, DMCH Darbhanga and ANMC Gaya.
However, by a common notification dated 10.05.2011, the petitioner was posted instead to Vardhman Institute of Medical Sciences (VIMS), Pawapuri, Nalanda. He joined there as Senior Resident on 29.11.2011 and continued till 15.08.2015.
Meanwhile, the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) issued advertisement no. 15/2017 for recruitment of Assistant Professors in different faculties of Medical Science in Government Medical Colleges and Hospitals under the Health Department. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Medicine).
When BPSC published the list of ineligible candidates, the petitioner’s name appeared with the remark that his “Senior Residency [is] less than three years in recognized Medical College”. Aggrieved, he approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 604 of 2018.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The core dispute before the Patna High Court was whether the petitioner could insist that all of his Senior Residency experience at VIMS Pawapuri, from 17.05.2011 to 15.08.2015, be counted towards the three-year teaching experience required for appointment as Assistant Professor.
The petitioner argued that the advertisement, particularly Clause 3(viii), required three years’ experience as Resident/Senior Resident in a Medical College and Hospital of the State. He claimed he had four years of such experience.
He stressed that he was deputed to VIMS Pawapuri by the State Government itself. Because the posting was not his choice, he said, any lack of recognition of VIMS by the Medical Council of India (MCI) during part of his tenure should not be held against him.
To support this, he relied on a letter dated 17.01.2018 issued by the Special Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, to the Secretary, BPSC. In that letter the Department requested BPSC to take into account the petitioner’s experience at VIMS Pawapuri from 17.05.2011 to 15.08.2015 and to treat him as eligible for interview, as he had been posted there by the State Government.
On the other side, BPSC opposed the writ petition. Its counsel explained that advertisements nos. 07/2017 to 31/2017, including 15/2017, had been issued based on a requisition from the Health Department vide letter no. 138(17) dated 26.02.2016 for 1171 Assistant Professor posts in various specialties.
BPSC acted under the Bihar Health Service Recruitment Rules, 2008 and the revised Rules, 2013. The last date for submitting application forms was 31.05.2017. As per directions in Health Department letter no. 540(17) dated 15.07.2016, that date was fixed as the cut-off by which candidates had to fulfil all required qualifications and experience.
The Court recorded the exact educational qualification and experience criteria stated in advertisement no. 15/2017. For appointment as Assistant Professor, the candidate needed a postgraduate degree (MD/MS/DNB) in the relevant subject and three years’ teaching experience as Senior Resident/Tutor in that subject after post-graduation, in Medical Colleges and Hospitals recognized by the MCI. Officers of the State Health Service who had already served as Resident/Senior Resident/Tutor for a minimum of three years in MCI-recognized teaching institutions were eligible.
BPSC submitted that an Expert Committee constituted by the Health Department examined all applications in light of the requisition and recruitment rules. During this scrutiny, the Committee found that the petitioner had two sets of Senior Residency experience:
First, he had worked as Senior Resident at IGIMS, Patna from 04.08.2003 to 31.10.2006. However, IGIMS was not a recognized Medical College during this period. Therefore, this experience could not be counted for eligibility under the advertisement and rules.
Second, he had served at VIMS Pawapuri from 17.05.2011 to 15.08.2015. The Medical Council of India, however, had recognized VIMS Pawapuri only in 2013. The Court noted that the MCI, now National Medical Commission, confirmed that the Central Government issued a letter of permission dated 02.07.2013 for establishing VIMS Pawapuri with an intake of 100 MBBS students annually from the academic year 2013–14 under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
On this basis, the Expert Committee treated the petitioner’s valid Senior Residency experience at VIMS Pawapuri as running only from 02.07.2013 (the date of recognition) to 15.08.2015. This was supported by a certificate issued by the Principal of VIMS Pawapuri vide letter no. 486 dated 16.05.2017.
Thus, even counting from 02.07.2013 to 15.08.2015, the petitioner fell short of the mandatory three-year Senior Residency requirement in an MCI-recognized Medical College. Consequently, the Commission declared him ineligible and did not call him for interview.
BPSC also addressed the Health Department’s letter dated 17.01.2018, which had favoured the petitioner. BPSC responded by letter dated 18.01.2018 stating that the Department’s instruction to count the whole period from 17.05.2011 to 15.08.2015 was contrary to Rule 7(iii) of the 2008 Recruitment Rules. Those Rules insist on three years’ teaching experience as Senior Resident/Tutor in a Medical College recognized by the MCI.
The Court noted that the BPSC’s position was that it was bound by the statutory rules and advertisement. It could not relax or ignore the requirement that the experience must be acquired in an MCI-recognized college.
The Court further recorded that a similar challenge to Rule 7(iii)(a) had earlier been considered by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 7297 of 2017, Dr. (Mrs.) Anupama Singh v. State of Bihar & Others. In that case, candidates contended that insisting on three years’ teaching experience after post-graduation went against the Medical Council of India Minimum Qualification for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998.
The Division Bench, after considering those Regulations and relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sudhir N. & Others v. State of Kerala & Others, (2015) 6 SCC 685, had upheld the State Rules. It held that MCI Regulations prescribe minimum qualifications, but the State, under Article 309 of the Constitution, can prescribe higher qualifications. The requirement that three years’ teaching experience be gained after post-graduation was treated as such a higher qualification and was declared valid.
That Division Bench decision in Dr. Anupama Singh followed an earlier coordinate Bench judgment in Md. Ali Muzaffar & Others v. State of Bihar & Others, 2012 (3) PLJR 419, which upheld the same Rule 7(iii)(a). In view of these binding precedents, the single judge in the present case found no ground to question the Rule or relax its application for the petitioner.
After examining the records, the Court concluded that both Clause 3(a) of advertisement no. 15/2017 and Rule 7(iii)(a) of the 2008 Rules clearly require three years’ teaching experience as Senior Resident/Tutor in a specified subject after post-graduation from a Medical College and Hospital recognized by MCI.
In the petitioner’s case, VIMS Pawapuri was recognized only from 02.07.2013. Therefore, his Senior Residency experience could be counted only from that date to 15.08.2015. This fell short of three years. His earlier experience at IGIMS Patna also could not help him because IGIMS was not a recognized medical college during 2003–2006.
The Court held that since the petitioner did not possess the essential qualification, he could not insist on being called for interview. The BPSC and the Expert Committee had correctly treated him as ineligible.
On these findings, the Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition as lacking merit and refused any relief.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for government doctors and other medical professionals seeking teaching posts in Bihar’s Government Medical Colleges through BPSC.
It makes clear that:
First, only experience gained in a Medical College recognized by the Medical Council of India or National Medical Commission will be counted for posts where such recognition is required. Service in a hospital or institute before recognition will not qualify, even if the doctor worked there for several years.
Second, the Patna High Court has once again affirmed that the State can prescribe higher standards than MCI minimum norms, and candidates must strictly meet these higher standards.
Third, letters or opinions from departments requesting relaxation cannot override statutory recruitment rules and the clear terms of an advertisement. BPSC is bound to follow the rules and cannot relax them for individual candidates.
For doctors planning their careers, this decision underlines the need to verify whether their place of posting is an MCI/NMC-recognized teaching institution and from which date, if they intend to compete for teaching posts in future.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can a candidate count Senior Residency experience gained in a medical institution before that institution was recognized by the Medical Council of India towards the three-year teaching experience required for Assistant Professor posts under advertisement no. 15/2017?
Answer: No. The Court held that only the period after recognition of the institution by MCI/NMC can be counted, and the petitioner’s valid experience from 02.07.2013 to 15.08.2015 was less than three years, making him ineligible. -
Issue: Can departmental directions asking BPSC to treat a candidate as eligible override the recruitment rules and advertisement requiring three years’ experience in an MCI-recognized Medical College?
Answer: No. The Court accepted BPSC’s stand that it must follow Rule 7(iii)(a) of the 2008 Rules and Clause 3(a) of the advertisement, and departmental letters cannot relax or contradict these binding conditions.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Md. Ali Muzaffar & Others v. The State of Bihar & Others, 2012 (3) PLJR 419 – upholding the State’s power to prescribe higher qualifications than MCI norms.
- Dr. (Mrs.) Anupama Singh v. The State of Bihar & Others, CWJC No. 7297 of 2017, judgment dated 15.05.2017 – reaffirming the validity of Rule 7(iii)(a) requiring three years’ post-PG teaching experience.
- Sudhir N. & Others v. State of Kerala & Others, (2015) 6 SCC 685 – Supreme Court decision referred to in the discussion on the force of MCI Regulations (as noted by the Division Bench in Dr. Anupama Singh).
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 604 of 2018
Case Title: Dr. Tej Narayan Raj v. The State of Bihar & Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
Date of Judgment: 24-12-2021
Citation: 2022(1) PLJR 339
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Prakash Chandra Jha, Advocate
- For the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC): Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
- For the State of Bihar: Mr. Vasant Vikas, AC to GP-12
- For the National Medical Commission (formerly MCI): Mr. Kumar Brijnandan, Advocate
- For the Intervener: Mr. Sunil Thakur, Advocate
Respondents: State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health & Medicine; Director, Health Services; Additional Secretary, Government of Bihar; Civil Surgeon, Arah, Bhojpur; Principal, Vardhman Institute of Medical Sciences, Pawapuri, Nalanda; Bihar Public Service Commission and its Joint Secretary-cum-Examination Controller; and Medical Council of India (now NMC).
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (civil) challenging rejection of candidature and non-issuance of interview letter for the post of Assistant Professor (Medicine) pursuant to BPSC advertisement no. 15/2017.
Link to the Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment in CWJC No. 604 of 2018
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
