Back
Dentist's Recruitment Bid Bites the Dust: Rajasthan HC Rules BDS ≠ 'Degree in Medicine'
In a setback for dental professionals eyeing government jobs, the dismissed a writ petition by Arvind Kumar Gupta, upholding the Rajasthan Public Service Commission's (RPSC) rejection of his candidature for Food Safety Officer. Justice Anand Sharma ruled that a Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) degree does not qualify as a "Degree in Medicine" under the recruitment advertisement, emphasizing courts' limited role in qualification equivalence.
Roots of the Row: A 2019 Ad and a Rejected Application
The dispute traces back to an RPSC advertisement dated , seeking Food Safety Officers. Essential qualifications included a degree in fields like Food Technology, Dairy Technology, or "Degree in Medicine" from a recognized university, plus post-selection training. Gupta, holding a BDS from , applied claiming eligibility. His candidature was nixed on , prompting this writ petition under . As noted in contemporary coverage like , the core question: Does BDS fall under "Degree in Medicine"?
Petitioner's Plea: Inclusive Definition and RTI Wins
Gupta's counsel,
, argued BDS qualifies as "Degree in Medicine." Citing the
's broad definition of "medicine"—
"modern scientific medicine in all its branches and includes surgery and obstetrics"
(excluding only veterinary)—they claimed dental surgery fits. RTI replies from
and
affirmed:
"Dental surgery is a branch of medicine."
They also invoked a 2023
ruling in
holding BDS holders eligible (though later stayed).
RPSC's Rebuttal: Expert Verdict and Employer Prerogative
Respondents, represented by and others, countered that "Degree in Medicine" means MBBS-like fields (Radiology, Cardiology, etc.), not BDS. A clarification () excluded other systems. They highlighted 's Dr. Nagaraju Tanneru v. State of Telangana (2023), where an expert committee of professors ruled BDS unmentioned in the 1956 Act or its schedule, hence non-equivalent. As employer, RPSC could set job-specific criteria considering duties and aptitude.
Bench's Balancing Act: SC Wisdom Guides the Way
Justice Sharma leaned on Supreme Court precedents limiting judicial interference:
- Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019) 2 SCC 404: Equivalence is the recruiting authority's domain, not courts'.
- Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal (2009) 1 SCC 610: Equivalence is a technical matter, neither implied nor assumed.
- State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun (2002) 6 SCC 252: Courts can't opine on qualification equivalence.
Echoing , the court noted no Central Government notification equates BDS to medicine under . An expert committee had already settled it negatively.
Key Observations from the Judgment
"It is that an employer... is entitled to prescribe qualifications... while doing so, all relevant factors... can be taken into consideration by the employer."(Para 14)
" is a matter within the sole ambit of the State as the recruiting authority and such equivalence can be decided by the State and not by the courts."(Para 15, citing Zahoor Ahmad Rather )
"When the Expert Committee has already examined the issue of equivalence and has come to the conclusion that ... there is no scope of interference."(Para 19)
Verdict Delivered: Petition Dismissed, Precedent Reinforced
The writ stands dismissed (Para 20), with no interference in RPSC's criteria. Implications? Reinforces employer autonomy in recruitments, barring arbitrary actions. BDS aspirants for similar roles face hurdles absent official equivalence notifications, potentially guiding future PSC processes nationwide. No costs or pending applications survive.
