ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

In the present O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“8.1. Declare that the Applicant is entitled to hold the position of Head of Department while carrying out Clinical, Patient Care, implementation of Health Programmes, Public Health Programmes and functions including advisory and consultancy work, as envisaged in the Notification dated 11.08.2018.

8.2. Quash the Guidelines dated 13.09.2024 issued by the Respondents, qua the Applicant, to the extent it imposes an age restriction of sixty-two (62) years for continuing as Head of Department or re-applying for the post of Head of Department after completing the three-year tenure.

8.3. Quash the Prescribed Format provided under the OM dated 13.08.2018 issued by the Respondents insofar as the same curtails the rights of the Application to continue or seek appointment/re-appointment as HOD even after attaining the age of sixty-two (62) years.

8.4. Quash the Email/Intimation dated 18.11.2025 directing the Petitioner to exercise the option contained in the Prescribed Format provided under the OM dated 13.08.2018.

8.5. Award costs of the present proceedings to the Applicant.

8.6. Grant any such other and further relief as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present O.A. has been field by the applicant challenging the arbitrary and unconstitutional implementation of the Guidelines dated 13.09.2024, whereby the respondents have sought to impose an upper age limit of 62 years for continuation/re-appointment as Head of Department (HOD), despite the Notification dated 11.08.2018 issued under Article 309 of the Constitution permitting doctors engaged in Clinical, Patient Care, Teaching and Public Health functions to continue till the age of 65 years.

2.1. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the post of HOD in a clinical super-speciality is not a purely administrative post but inherently involves direct patient care and clinical functions, and therefore cannot be excluded from the benefit of extended service.

2.2. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel on the TEQ Regulations, 2022 framed by the National Medical Commission, which mandate that appointments to administrative posts in Government institutions shall be based on inter-se seniority and do not prescribe any such age bar.

2.3. Learned counsel argued that the impugned Guidelines, read with the OM dated 13.08.2018 and consequential communications, are contrary to statutory regulations, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, discriminatory in effect, and resulting in compelling the applicant, who is the senior-most in her department, to either relinquish the post or function under her juniors.

2.4. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the core issue in the present Original Application is whether the respondents can, through executive guidelines, curtail the applicant’s statutory and constitutional right to continue and be considered for the post of HOD up to the age of 65 years in a clinical speciality.

2.5. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the applicant it is submitted that the present challenge arises from the respondents’ erroneous and misconceived classification of the post of Head of Department in a super-speciality branch as a purely administrative post, thereby denying the applicant the right to continue beyond the age of 62 years despite her continuing to discharge predominant clinical, diagnostic and teaching functions. It is contended that the applicant, a senior-most Radiology Specialist appointed as HOD at RML Hospital, has throughout her tenure remained actively engaged in patient care, diagnostic procedures, postgraduate teaching and academic supervision, and that the post neither carries deputation status nor confers independent