Strict Adherence to Application Deadlines Upheld: Madras High Court Dismisses Doctors' Plea for Assistant Surgeon Posts

Madras High Court Rejects Doctors' Plea for Assistant Surgeon Posts Over Missed Registration Deadline

Chennai, Tamil Nadu – March 21, 2025 – The Madras High Court has firmly upheld the importance of adhering to application deadlines in government recruitments, dismissing writ petitions filed by five doctors seeking appointments as Assistant Surgeons (General) in Tamil Nadu. Justice C.V.Karthikeyan presiding over the case, rejected the petitions, emphasizing that eligibility criteria, particularly the last date for registration with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, must be strictly followed.

Case Overview

The petitioners, Dr. Rohan Joseph , Dr. Sahaya Anusha, Dr. Blessing Y Hebron Alex, Dr. Parthasarathi, and Dr. Paabish Joe , all qualified MBBS graduates with completed internships, applied for the post of Assistant Surgeon (General) based on Notification No.01/MRB/2024 dated March 15, 2024, issued by the Medical Services Recruitment Board (MRB). A crucial clause, 6B(III), required candidates to be registered with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council by the extended deadline of July 15, 2024.

The petitioners, while possessing provisional certificates and completing internships, registered with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council after the stipulated deadline. Consequently, they were not included in the selection list, prompting them to file writ petitions challenging the notification and the selection process.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Counsel Argued:

The delay in registration was due to the Provisional Certificate-II being issued by the Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University only on July 11, 2024.

They faced congestion on the Tamil Nadu Medical Council portal, leading to delayed slot allocation for registration.

They argued for a lenient view, claiming they were otherwise qualified and their non-selection was unjust.

Respondents' Counsel (Government of Tamil Nadu, MRB, and Tamil Nadu Medical Council) Countered:

The notification clearly specified July 15, 2024, as the cut-off date for registration, a condition uniformly applied to all candidates.

Extending the deadline would be unfair to candidates who diligently met the original requirements.

They cited the immense scale of the recruitment process, involving over 23,000 applicants, making individual exceptions impractical and detrimental to the integrity of the process.

Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing adherence to eligibility criteria as of the last application date.

Court's Reasoning and Reliance on Precedents

Justice Karthikeyan heavily relied on the Supreme Court's rulings in Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NLT of Delhi) and Others [(2013) 11 SCC 58] and Tey Prakash Pathak and Others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others [(2024) SCC Online SC 1612] to underscore the settled legal position that eligibility must be determined as of the last date of application.

The court quoted extensively from Rakesh Kumar Sharma , highlighting the principle that "eligibility conditions should be examined as on last date for receipt of applications." It further emphasized that "those candidates who had fulfilled the requisite qualification on the last date of receipt of the applications alone had a right to be considered for appointment."

Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Tey Prakash Pathak , the court reiterated that "Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies," and "Eligibility criteria...notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway."

Justice Karthikeyan explicitly rejected the plea for leniency based on sympathy, citing Ran Vijay Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018) 2 SCC 357], which stated, "sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet... The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed."

The court reasoned that extending the deadline would "throw the Notification into the dustbin" and open "flood gates for hundreds and hundreds of other candidates" who might have registered late, undermining the fairness and transparency of the selection process.

Final Decision and Implications

Ultimately, the Madras High Court dismissed all the writ petitions. The judgment reinforces the critical importance of candidates meeting all eligibility criteria, including deadlines, as stipulated in recruitment notifications. It underscores that courts cannot intervene to relax essential conditions or extend deadlines, even on sympathetic grounds, as it would compromise the integrity of the recruitment process and prejudice other compliant candidates.

The decision serves as a crucial reminder for aspiring government employees to diligently adhere to all instructions and deadlines outlined in official notifications and to proactively ensure they meet all eligibility requirements within the prescribed timeframe.