SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, C.J., R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
G. Chittibabu S/o G. Devasahayam – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 28597 of 2024
Decided On : 10-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Srinivasa Rao Narra
For the Respondents: S. Pranathi, Tata Venkata Sridevi

The court upheld the amendments to the P.G. Rules imposing an upper age limit and extended service period for in-service candidates, ruling them as non-arbitrary and justified.

Headnote:(A) A.P. Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 1997 - G.O.Ms. No. 85, dated 20.07.2024 - Challenge to upper age limit of 50 years and enhanced service period of 10 years for in-service candidates - The court found no arbitrariness in the amendments made to the rules, affirming that the changes were justified and did not constitute a midstream alteration of rules. (Paras 4, 7, 8)

(B) Judicial Precedent - The court referenced its previous judgment in W.P. No. 17652 of 2024, establishing that amendments made post-notification do not invalidate the rules if no prior stipulation existed regarding the changes. (Paras 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Civil Assistant Surgeon, challenged the amendments to the P.G. Rules that imposed an upper age limit of 50 years and increased the mandatory service period from 6 to 10 years, which excluded him from in-service reservations due to his age.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the amendments, stating they were not arbitrary and served a legitimate purpose in ensuring the availability of skilled medical officers.

Issues: The main issues were the legality of the upper age limit and the increase in the mandatory service period for in-service candidates.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the amendments were reasonable and did not constitute a midstream change, as they were aimed at enhancing the quality of medical services.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

ORDER :

R.Raghunandan Rao, J.

1. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Narra, for the Petitioner, the Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Mrs. Tata Venkata Sridevi, the learned Standing Counsel for Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences appearing for respondent No. 3.

2. The petitioner had completed M.B.B.S. degree from Guntur Medical College in the year 2009 and had joined the service of the State and is presently working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, in Medarametla Primary Health Centre, since 01.09.2022. The petitioner, appeared for the NEET-PG examination, conducted on 11.08.2024, and obtained All India Rank 165249. The petitioner sought admission into the P.G. Medical Courses, by claiming reservations available to in-service candidates.

3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, for the purposes of promoting better medical care, in this State, in the public hospitals and institutions, had reserved certain seats for in-service candidates, namely Medical Officers, who are in the service of the State, in P.G. admissions under the A.P. Medical Colleges, (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 1997 (herein after referred to “P.G. Rules”). The percentage of reservation had been fixed under G.O.Ms. No. 150, dated 11.12.2021 to 30% of seats in clinical and 50% of seats in non-clinical P.G. Medical Courses for in-service candidates. Thereafter, a committee was constituted to go into the question of the percentage of seats that should be reserved for in-service candidates and the terms and conditions under which such reservation should be granted. On the basis of the recommendations made by this committee, G.O.Ms. No. 85, dated 20.07.2024 was issued, whereby the P.G. Rules were amended.

4. One of the amendments, brought in by G.O.Ms. No. 85 was a stipulation that upper age for such in-service candidates, who would be eligible for reservation, is completion of 50 years as on the date of the NEET examination. This upper age limit, was brought in, for the purpose of complying with Rule-f (b) in the impugned G.O. which stipulated that an in-service candidate would have to serve a minimum period of 10 years after completion of the P.G. Courses. This amendment is challenged in the present writ petition by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the earlier Rules prescribed a mandatory service period of 6 years, whereas the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 85 enhanced the service period to 10 years. Apart from it, the penalty amount of Rs. 25 lakhs, prescribed as a bond condition was enhanced to Rs.50 lakhs. The same would become payable upon failure of the in-service candidate to serve for the required period. The petitioner also assailed the fixation of age limit on the ground that when there was no age limit prescribed in the earlier rules, the amended Rules now prescribe an upper age limit of 50 years. This challenge has come about, as the petitioner is presently 51 years and the stipulation of the upper age limit of 50 years would effectively exclude the petitioner from being given the benefit of in-service reservation.

5. Sri Srinivasa Rao Narra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that such conditions are arbitrary and without any basis. He would further submit that the said conditions have been brought in, midstream, and change of Rules after the process of examination had been initiated is not permissible.

6. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the committee had recommended enhancement of the minimum period of service from six years to ten years and for enhancement of penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs to Rs. 50 lakhs as a measure of ensuring that people of the State are able to obtain the benefit of the enhanced knowledge and skill of the Medical Officers of the State for a longer period. The learned Government Pleader would also point out that the age of superannuation for Medical Officers is 63 years. The P.G. Medical Course is for a period of three years, thus the upper age limit of 50 years

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top