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) 3226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Dr. Yogendra Taneja G. & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Member Secretary, Medical Services Recruitment Board, Teynampet, Chennai & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.Nos.7117, 7119, 7123, 7125 & 7129 of 2025 And W.M.P.Nos.7882, 7884, 7888, 7890, 7897, 7898, 7901, 7902, 7907 & 7908 of 2025
Decided On : 06-03-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners in all W.Ps.: Mr. M. Velmurugan.
For the Respondents in all W.Ps.:Mr. J. Ravindran Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. L. Murugavelu, Mr. G. Arumugam, Mr. U. Bharanidharan.

The eligibility for selection in recruitment processes must be determined as of the last date for application, and extensions cannot be granted based on sympathy.

Headnote:(A) Medical Recruitment Board Notification - Clauses and Provisions - Eligibility for Assistant Surgeon - Petitioners challenged non-inclusion in selection despite having completed educational requirements; claiming mala fides due to delayed registration. Court upheld that eligibility is determined on the cut-off date. (Paras 9-34)

(B) Recruitment Process - The eligibility should be evaluated as on the last date for application. The date cannot be changed arbitrarily. Candidates must satisfy qualifications as per the advertisement. Sympathetic grounds are insufficient for exceptions. (Paras 19-20, 28-30)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners had met educational qualifications by completing MBBS and internships, but registered with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council after the specified cut-off date (15.07.2024), leading to their applications being rejected.

Findings of Court:
The notifications specified clear eligibility criteria, and the petitioners could not claim selection after failing to register before the deadline; no extension of the eligibility cut-off date was permissible.

Issues: Whether the court could extend the cut-off eligibility date based on sympathy for the petitioners’ situation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that adherence to the cut-off date as established in the recruitment notification is binding and cannot be altered retroactively.

Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners applied for assistant surgeon post. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioners seek inclusion based on delayed registration. (Para 3)
3. writ petitioners were qualified for the position. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. court emphasizes adherence to established cut-off dates. (Para 7)
5. final dismissal of writ petitions. (Para 8)

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 registrationTNMCTime slot chosen by the petitionerCertificate verification for permanent registration
1.7117/2025Dr.Yogendrataneja G12.07.2024 07.54 pm13.07.2024 10.51 am18.07.2024 03.00 pm18.07.2024 10.56 am
2.7119/2025Dr.Surya S10.07.2024 09.37 pm16.07.2024 02.49 pm26.07.2024 02.00 pm26.07.2024 12.45 pm
3.7123/2025Dr.Pavithra L15.07.2024 02.37 pm18.07.2024 01.10 pm23.07.2024 02.00 pm23.07.2024 02.11 pm
4.7125/2025Dr.Malini C12.07.2024 11.50 am13.07.2024 11.41 am16.07.2024 10.00 am16.07.2024 10.26 am
5.7129/2025Dr.Jayarupa K14.07.2024 11.21 am15.07.2024 04.38 am25.07.2024 10.00 am25.07.2024 09.53 am

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

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