MPPSC Cannot Reject Doctors For PG Additional Registration Not Mentioned In Advertisement: MP High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, on Tuesday (January 27), allowed a batch of writ petitions by qualified medical practitioners whose candidature was rejected in the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission recruitment for Medical Officer (Grade-I) and Specialist Doctors under the Public Health and Medical Education Department. The Court held that disqualifying candidates at document verification or after provisional results by applying an eligibility condition not specified in the advertisement amounted to altering selection conditions mid-process, offending fairness and legitimate expectation, and impacting constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 (and, in some cases, Article 19(1)(g)). It directed the petitioners to submit their qualification documents within 15 days and ordered the competent authority to verify eligibility based on timely declaration of essential postgraduate results, without treating additional registration as decisive.
The petitions were filed by qualified medical practitioners who had applied pursuant to recruitment advertisements issued by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission for the posts of Medical Officer (Grade-I) and Specialist Doctors under the Public Health and Medical Education Department of the State. The petitioners possessed Post Graduate Degrees or Diplomas in recognized medical specialties and permanent registration with the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council.
According to the petitioners, the recruitment advertisements prescribed possession of a recognized Post Graduate qualification as the essential eligibility condition, while permanent registration with the State Medical Council was mentioned separately. No requirement was specified for holding a separate “Post Graduate Additional Registration” certificate as on the cut-off date. The petitioners applied within time and, in several cases, were permitted to participate in the selection process pursuant to interim orders, including appearing in interviews.
Their candidature was later rejected during document verification or after provisional results, solely on the ground that the Post Graduate Additional Registration had been issued after the cut-off date of 21.04.2025. The petitioners challenged these rejections as arbitrary and contrary to the notified eligibility conditions, contending that delays in issuance of additional registration were attributable to administrative processes of the Medical Council and beyond their control.
The Court observed that rejecting candidature at the document verification stage or after the provisional results by applying an eligibility requirement not disclosed in advance amounted to "changing the rules of the game after the game has begun and is violative of the principles of fairness, transparency, and legitimate expectation and infringes the petitioners' fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and in certain cases Article 19(1)(g) as well".
On the placement of the requirement of registration, the Court recorded that “the clause relating to Permanent Registration with the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council has been categorically placed under the heading ‘Desirable Qualification’ and not under ‘Essential Educational Qualification’.” It stated that service jurisprudence clearly distinguishes between essential and desirable qualifications and that “‘desirable’ cannot be treated as mandatory or essential unless the recruitment rules or advertisement clearly and unambiguously so provide.”
The Court further observed that “mere use of the word ‘mandatory’ in relation to a desirable qualification, without placing it under the essential qualification clause, creates ambiguity, and such ambiguity cannot be resolved to the detriment of the candidate.” It noted that if the authorities intended to make possession of Post Graduate Additional Registration mandatory as on the cut-off date, “the same ought to have been clearly, expressly, and unequivocally incorporated in the advertisement.”
On the conduct of the recruiting authorities, the Court recorded that “permitting the petitioners to participate in the selection process, accepting their documents, issuing acknowledgements, and allowing them to appear in interviews, followed by rejection of candidature on an unstated eligibility condition, is manifestly arbitrary.” It further stated that such action “clearly amounts to changing the rules of the game after the game has begun, which is impermissible in law.”
The Court thus observed "This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners had a legitimate expectation that their candidature would be evaluated strictly in accordance with the eligibility conditions prescribed in the advertisement, and such expectation could not have been defeated by introducing an unstated requirement at a belated stage, in the absence of any overriding public interest... Mere non-possession or non-submission of “Post Graduate Additional Registration” as on the cut-off date shall not operate as a bar to their participation in the recruitment process".
The Court directed that “the petitioners are directed to approach the competent authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, along with the certificates/documents relating to their essential educational qualification as spelt out in the advertisement.”
“The competent authority shall examine the said certificates/documents solely for the purpose of verifying whether the petitioners possess the essential educational qualification … and whether the result thereof was declared on or before the last extended date i.e. 21/04/2025, irrespective of the status of any ‘Additional Registration’.”
“If upon such verification … the petitioners are found to fulfil the essential eligibility criteria … they shall be permitted to pursue the recruitment process further in accordance with law, and their candidature shall not be rejected on the sole ground of non-submission of ‘Post Graduate Additional Registration’.”
“The above entire exercise of verification and consequential decision shall be completed by the competent authority within a further period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the documents filed by the petitioners.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Tushar Sodani, Advocate; Shri Anil Nagrani, Advocate; Shri Abhinav Malhotra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri Vindhyavashini Prasad Khare, Counsel for MPPSC; Ms. Drishti Rawal, Government Advocate for the State
Case Title: Dr. Vijay v. M.P. Public Service Commission & Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: MPHC-IND:2473
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 12337 of 2025 and connected matters
Bench: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai
