Declares Hospitals Without Doctors Are Mere “Bricks and Mortar”
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a sharp reminder that the is more than a paper promise. In a judgment delivered by Justice Sandeep Moudgil on , the Court directed the to immediately redistribute surplus Ayurvedic Medical Officers and explain why over 600 vacancies remain unfilled two years after recruitment was supposedly completed.
A Dispute That Transcended Individual Grievances
What began as two civil writ petitions filed by Satyavati quickly evolved into an examination of systemic failures in public healthcare delivery across Haryana. The petitioners highlighted glaring imbalances in the posting of Ayurvedic Medical Officers under the . While certain urban centres enjoyed surplus staff, several Primary Health Clinics and Government Ayurvedic Dispensaries in rural areas functioned with inadequate numbers or without any medical officer at all.
Justice Moudgil noted that the matter “travels beyond an individual service dispute and touches upon the larger issue of availability of public healthcare in the State.”
Constitutional Foundations: and the State’s Continuing Obligation
Drawing on precedent in , the Court underscored that the and medical care forms an integral facet of . Because “public health and hospitals” falls within the State List, the constitutional responsibility rests squarely with the State.
The judgment is unequivocal: establishing institutions is not enough. “A hospital deprived of doctors is but a structure of bricks and mortar, incapable of securing the to the citizens,” Justice Moudgil observed. Healthcare, the Court stressed, “cannot remain a matter of paper assurances or statistical abstractions.”
Court Identifies Surplus Staff and Chronic Vacancies
An affidavit filed by Additional Director Vijender Hooda revealed the paradox: substantial vacancies existed statewide even as 97 Ayurvedic Medical Officers were posted in surplus at certain locations. Director Sanjeev Verma, appearing personally before the Court, attributed the imbalance largely to officers exercising options for urban postings.
The figures were stark—more than 603 posts remained vacant despite the recruitment process having concluded in following advertisements issued in . This prolonged shortage, the Court held, was “adversely affecting availability of healthcare services in substantial parts of the State.”
Employees’ Convenience Must Yield to
Rejecting any notion that administrative convenience could override public welfare, the Court ruled that “convenience of employees working under the State must yield to where issues concerning healthcare and public welfare are involved.”
Justice Moudgil described the Court as “ ” that could not remain a “mute spectator” to executive inaction that disturbs the balance between administrative exigencies and citizens’ fundamental right to accessible healthcare.
Key Directives and the Road Ahead
The Director, , has been ordered to complete a comprehensive, equitable and requirement-based redistribution exercise across all Government Ayurvedic Dispensaries and PHCs within two weeks. A compliance affidavit must be filed on .
Simultaneously, the Additional Chief Secretary, , has been asked to personally examine why recruitment to fill the 603 vacancies has not been initiated and to propose both a timeline and interim measures to address the shortfall. The personal appearance of the Director General has been exempted for the time being.
Implications for Haryana’s Healthcare Landscape
The ruling sends a clear message that constitutional morality demands results on the ground, not merely in policy documents. By linking unequal doctor deployment directly to violations, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has placed public health administration under heightened judicial scrutiny. Rural and underserved areas of Haryana can now expect concrete action rather than statistical reassurances.
As the Court aptly summarised: “It casts upon the State not only a sacrosanct duty to ensure that basic medical facilities remain available and accessible to each and every citizen of the State but also it is a continuing obligation of governance.”