The Patna High Court has dismissed a challenge to the Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology (IGIC) Medical Service (Amendment) Rules, 2023, which changed how the Director of IGIC is appointed. In a judgment dated 21 February 2025, a Division Bench led by the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy held that the State of Bihar was competent to revise qualifications and convert the Director’s post into a promotional post to be filled from among eligible Additional Directors on the basis of inter se seniority.

The petitioner, an aspirant for the Director’s post under earlier rules, had attacked Rules 5, 6 and Appendix-1 of the 2023 Amendment and also questioned Rule 17 of the 2022 Rules. The core grievance was that the 2023 changes allegedly diluted the earlier requirement of super-speciality (DM/MCh) for the Director and converted a selection post into a promotional post, thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 and allegedly being repugnant to central medical education norms.

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

Background: From a selection post to a promotional post

IGIC, a specialized state cardiac hospital carved out of Patna Medical College & Hospital in 1980, initially had teaching posts, which were later converted to non-teaching posts in 1984 due to operational difficulties and better service outcomes under a non-teaching structure. In 2014, Bihar notified a detailed cadre structure for IGIC, including a single Director post to be filled by “selection” and prescriptive qualifications—MD+DM (Cardiology) or MS+MCh (Cardio-thoracic Surgery), plus 15 years’ experience in an MCI-recognized cardiology institute.

The 2022 Rules made two major shifts: (i) changed the recruiting agency from BPSC to BTSC; and (ii) broadened acceptable experience (not just in cardiology institutes) so long as the medical college had an independent cardiology/CTVS department. However, the basic super-speciality degree requirement for the Director remained intact in 2022.

The 2023 Amendment then replaced the selection mechanism with promotion from the pool of Additional Directors (medical or surgical cardiology) based on inter se seniority and removed the mandatory super-speciality degree for the Director’s post, even though super-speciality remained required for junior rungs. The revised minimum now permits MD (Medicine) or DM (Cardiology) or MS or MCh (Cardio-thoracic Surgery) plus 15 years’ experience in an NMC-recognized institution with an independent cardiology/CTVS department. Appointments are to be made by the State Government.

The petitioner’s case

The petitioner argued that:

• IGIC is a superspeciality cardiology institute where even the Assistant Director requires DM (Cardiology); hence, diluting the Director’s qualification is irrational and violates Articles 14 and 16.
• MCI/NMC norms allegedly mandate super-speciality for such leadership roles and the State could not reduce these standards.
• The 2023 Amendment was a colorable exercise to accommodate the incumbent functional head and to scrap an ongoing selection process that had shortlisted the petitioner under the 2014 regime.

The State’s response and NMC’s stand

The State contended that IGIC is a “stand-alone hospital” providing superspeciality services, not a medical teaching institution. Therefore, teacher-qualification regulations issued by MCI/NMC (meant for medical colleges) do not control recruitment to non-teaching hospital posts like the IGIC Director.

The National Medical Commission’s affidavit clarified that its Teachers’ Eligibility Qualification Regulations, 2022 prescribe minimum standards for faculty in medical institutions and do not create recruitment rules for hospital posts. It added that positions like Dean/Director/Principal mentioned in those Regulations refer to medical colleges and require teaching experience as Professor/Associate Professor—criteria not applicable to a non-teaching hospital. Recruitment rules for hospital posts fall within the State’s domain.

The Court’s analysis

The Bench reiterated settled principles for testing subordinate legislation (e.g., lack of competence, violation of fundamental rights, repugnancy, failure to conform to the enabling statute, manifest arbitrariness), and emphasized that judicial review of policy focuses on legality, not wisdom or merits.

Applying those principles, the Court found:

• The 2023 changes lie within the State’s power under the proviso to Article 309 to set service conditions for a stand-alone hospital like IGIC. MCI/NMC teacher-qualification norms apply to teaching posts in medical colleges, not to this hospital’s Director.
• IGIC’s DNB accreditation does not convert it into a “medical institution” (in the statutory sense) or transform its staff into “teachers”. Many private hospitals with no teaching role also hold DNB accreditation.
• Retaining super-speciality qualifications for junior cadres while not insisting on it for the Director is not per se arbitrary because the Director’s role is primarily administrative; patient care remains with superspecialist doctors.
• Changing rules mid-process is permissible before selection concludes; if the process had already culminated in the petitioner’s appointment, the legal position might differ.

Accordingly, all grounds of challenge failed. Still, the Court directed the Government to proceed with a regular (not ad hoc/contractual) appointment to the Director’s post in terms of the amended framework.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This ruling provides clear administrative space to the State Government to structure leadership posts in specialized state hospitals according to service needs rather than academic faculty norms. For government health departments, it confirms that:

• Non-teaching, stand-alone hospitals are not bound by MCI/NMC teacher-qualification regulations for faculty. Service rules for such hospitals can legitimately prioritize seniority and extensive clinical/administrative experience over academic teaching credentials.
• Mid-stream changes to recruitment policies are sustainable when selection is not concluded and when the policy objective is institutional management rather than targeting or excluding individuals.
• DNB accreditation alone does not convert a hospital into a “medical college” or import college-faculty regulations into its staffing.

For the public and for IGIC staff, the decision means that the Director’s post will be filled by promotion from within the senior cadre, aligning leadership with long-term institutional experience. At the same time, the Bench’s nudge against continued contractual occupancy of the post signals the need for regularization and stability at the top.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning

• Competence of State to prescribe qualifications and promotion mode for IGIC Director (Article 309 powers): Upheld. IGIC is a stand-alone hospital; teacher-qualification regulations apply to medical colleges, not to this post.
• Alleged repugnancy to MCI/NMC regulations: Rejected. The regulations cited govern faculty in medical institutions; they do not control recruitment to non-teaching hospital posts.
• Removal of super-speciality requirement for Director as arbitrary under Articles 14 and 16: Rejected. The Director’s role is primarily administrative; clinical superspecialists continue to handle patient care.
• Validity of converting the Director’s post from selection to promotion based on inter se seniority: Upheld as a policy choice within State’s domain; courts review legality, not policy wisdom.
• Challenge to retention of “dying cadre” savings (Rule 17 of 2014/2022): Court noted the purpose of saving earlier entrants and found no present practical impact; the cadre appears virtually extinct.
• Effect of an ongoing but unconcluded selection process (BPSC Advt. No. 68/2020): State could amend rules before conclusion; had the petitioner been appointed, the position might differ.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Shudhir & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 685 — cited by petitioner; used to argue that minimum eligibility conditions cannot be diluted arbitrarily.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517 — principles for testing subordinate legislation.
• In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2880 — for scope of judicial review and separation of powers (policy vs. legality).

Case Title

Dr. Sandeep Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15400 of 2023.

Citation(s)

2025 (2) PLJR 189

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy.

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the petitioner: Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Advocate.
• For the State/Respondents: Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General; Mr. D.K. Sinha, Senior Advocate; Mr. Abhinay Raj, Advocate; Mr. Alexander Ashok, Advocate.

Link to Judgment

MTUjMTU0MDAjMjAyMyMxI04=-lMDWqsOCdHo=

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.