2025 Supreme(Mad) 2738
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Dr.Harish R. - Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu - Respondent
W.P.NOS.10208, 10212, 10216, 10220 AND 10224 OF 2025 AND WMP NOS.11473 TO 11475, 11479 TO 11481, 11487 TO 11489, 11496 TO 11498 AND 11502 TO 11504 OF 2025
Decided on : 02-04-2025
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Recruitment and Selection
Headnote
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court cannot wield benevolence in altering strict eligibility rules post-application timelines. Failure to comply with stipulated procedural deadlines results in ineligibility. (Paras 21-34)
(C) Recruitment Law - Selection process must adhere to specified conditions set forth in advertisements and notifications, without arbitrary alterations affecting a large class of applicants. (Paras 25-27)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, qualified candidates for the Assistant Surgeon (General) position, applied amidst complaints of system congestion hindering timely registration with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, leading to non-inclusion in the selection list issued based on specific deadlines.
Findings of Court:
The petitioners were found ineligible as they failed to register before the critical cut-off date of 15.07.2024, with no allowance for late registrations.
Issues: Whether the court can extend the registration deadline for late applications and arbitrate eligibility when a significant number of applicants adhered to the stipulated rules; the petitioners’ claim for consideration despite failing to comply fully with the procedural requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compliance with cut-off dates is non-negotiable for eligibility, underscoring that the recruitment process is fundamentally governed by the terms laid out in the notification.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.M.Velmurugan
For the Respondent:Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.L.Murugavelu, Mr.A.Mohamed Gouse, Standing Counsel, Mr.U.Bharanidharan
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions challenging selection list (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. common order for similar grounds raised (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. petitioners' qualifications and registration timeline (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. final ruling affirmed dismissal based on qualifications not met. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
The Writ Petitioners had applied for the post of Assistant Surgeon (General).
2. All these Writ Petitions have been filed seeking records relating to the selection list issued consequent to Notification No.01/MRB/2024, dated 15.03.2024 with specific reference to Clause 6B(III) modified by Notification dated 14.05.2024 and selection list in Ref. No. PSL.No.01/MRB/2024 dated 20.02.2025 and to quash the same so far as the non-inclusion of these writ petitioners are concerned.
3. All the writ petitioners have raised the same ground questioning the Notification and therefore, a common order is passed with respect to these writ petitions.
4. All the writ petitioners were duly qualified to apply for the post of Assistant Surgeon (General). They had completed their Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (M.B.B.S.) Degree. Thereafter, they were issued with Provisional Certificate. Thereafter, they also completed their one year internship programme. On completion of internship, they were issued with Provisional Certificate-II. After receiving that particular certificate, they had applied with the third respondent for registration as registered Medical Practitioner.
5.The following are the details as to the date on which the petitioners applied for permanent Registration with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council / third respondent and the date on which the approval was granted and the time slot chosen by the writ petitioners and the date on which the certificates were verified for permanent registration.
| S.No. | W.P.No. | Petitioner | Date of Application for permanent registration | TNMC Approval | Time slot chosen by the petitioner | Certificate verification for permanent registration |
| 1. | 10208/2025 | Dr.Harish R | 12.07.2024 08.47 pm | 13.07.2024 10.59 am | 18.07.2024 11.00 am | 18.07.2024 11.22 am |
| 2. | 10212/2025 | Dr.Pavithra V | 12.08.2024 09.41 am | 13.08.2024 10.05 am | 10.09.2024 10.00 am | 10.09.2024 10.05 am |
| 3. | 10216/2025 | Dr.Vinutha Sri | 12.07.2024 04.42 pm | 13.07.2024 02.25 pm | 24.07.2024 02.00 pm | 24.07.2024 02.16 pm |
| 4. | 10220/2025 | Dr.Harsini Priya | 12.07.2024 03.45 pm | 13.07.2024 02.51 pm | 16.07.2024 03.00 pm | 16.07.2024 01.30 pm |
| 5. | 10224/2025 | Dr.Yamonth B | 22.07.2024 03.10 pm | 13.08.2024 03.05 pm | 16.09.2024 12.00 pm | 16.09.2024 12.11 pm |
6. This Court had occasion to examine similar batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.6533 of 2025 etc., batch [Dr.M.Sai Ghanesh Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Medical Services Recruitment Board, Chennai and others, wherein this Court had passed the following common order:-
“9. The uniform arguments that have been advanced by the learned counsel in all the three Writ Petitions is that the Provisional Certificate -II, which was issued by Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, was issued only on 11.07.2024. It had been contended that these three writ petitioners had completed the course in the College, which runs for about five years in the year 2023 and had been issued with what is called as Provisional Certificate - I. But that is not sufficient. They have to undergo the Internship for a period of one year, which they have successfully completed. The learned counsels pointed out that thereafter, the Provisional Certificate-II had been issued by the University, which was the certificate certifying that they have undergone the course in the College and also successfully completed their Internship as required for a further period of one year. It is uniformly contended that this particular certificate/Provisional Certificate-II was issued only on 11.07.2024. The learned counsels pointed out that all the three writ petitioners had applied for the post of Assistant Surgeon (General) and they were also permitted to write the examinations and that therefore, they had a legitimate expectation that there co