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

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3057

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Dr. Bhuvaneswari C. & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Member Secretary, Medical Services Recruitment Board & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.Nos.7367, 7370, 7373, 7376 & 7379 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.8228, 8229, 8232, 8233, 8236, 8237, 8241, 8242, 8245 & 8246 of 2025
Decided On : 13-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. M.Velmurugan
For the Respondent:Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.L.Murugavelu Mr.J. Selvaraja Mr.U.Bharanidharan

Eligibility for public employment must be determined by qualifications as of the specified application deadline, with no exceptions for late registration.

Headnote:(A) Medical Services Recruitment Board Notification - Assistant Surgeon (General) qualifications - Notification No.01/MRB/2024 stipulated registration deadline of 15.07.2024; petitioners registered late - Court affirms principle that eligibility is determined as of the last date for applications - Appointment rights cannot be claimed if qualifications are fulfilled after the cut-off date. (Paras 9, 12, 20, 29)

(B) Recruitment process criteria - Eligibility determined by qualifications on the last date specified in the notification; changed criteria during selection process not permissible unless stipulated by rules. (Paras 18, 26)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, qualified MBBS graduates, filled applications for Assistant Surgeon but failed to register with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council before the cut-off date of 15.07.2024, leading to exclusion from selection list.

Findings of Court:
All petitioners failed the eligibility requirement as they did not complete registration within the specified timeframe; the selection process adhered to rules without bias against individuals.

Issues: The main issues pertained to the question of eligibility based on cut-off dates for registration with the council versus fulfilling application criteria.

Ratio Decidendi: Court upheld that only candidates who meet eligibility by the last date for application consideration can be included in selection; sympathy for individual circumstances does not merit alteration of established rules.

Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. filing for assistant surgeon post (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. qualifications and certificate details (Para 4 , 5)
3. arguments on eligibility and registration delays (Para 6)

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 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.PetitionerDate of Application for permanent registrationTNMC ApprovalTime slot chosen by the petitionerCertificate verification for permanent registration
1.7367/2025Dr.Bhuveneshwari C19.07.2024 07.25 pm22.07.2024 04.56 pm30.07.2024 12.00 pm30.07.2024 11.37 pm
2.7370/2025Dr.Cibin K20.07.2024 10.46 am23.07.2024 01.05 pm31.07.2024 10.00 am31.07.2024 10.10 am
3.7373/2025Dr.Madhumitha E12.07.2024 07.24 pm13.07.2024 11.26 am18.07.2024 10.00 am18.07.2024 10.43 am
4.7376/2025Dr.Jeeva Jothi12.07.2024 12.54 pm13.07.2024 02.32 pm16.07.2024 02.00 pm16.07.2024 01.16 pm
5.7379/2025Dr.Kouthaman19.08.2024 05.59 pm20.08.2024 05.06 pm02.09.2024 12.00 pm02.09.2024 12.14 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 could be no further hurdles while considering their selection or on examining their credentials vis-a-vis the applications, which they had submitted. But, ho

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