NHM Contractual Dental Surgeons Are "In the Service of Government"; Eligible for Age Relaxation Under MPSC Recruitment Rules: Bombay High Court
The Court held that recruitment rules do not require permanent government service; directed MPSC to recommend eligible surgeons for appointment.
The Bombay High Court has held that contractual dental surgeons engaged under the National Health Mission (NHM) and serving in government hospitals are entitled to age relaxation under the Directorate of Health Services Recruitment Rules, 1990, holding that permanent government employment is not a prerequisite for claiming the benefit.
The Bench dismissed writ petitions filed by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) challenging an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), which had directed the Commission to recommend the names of three contractual NHM dental surgeons for appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon.
A Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale observed, “…neither Rule 3(b) of the Rules of 1990 nor Clause 4.2 of the Advertisement Notice dated 31st July 2015 require that the candidates, in order to get the benefit of waiver of upper age limit, must be government servants nor does it prescribe that the appointment of the candidates serving under the Government of Maharashtra must be permanent and/or on regular basis…”.
“…from a scrutiny of the appointment orders as well as the certificates issued to the Original Applicants, we find that those were issued by the Medical Superintendent of the Government Hospitals. Not only that the service of the Respondents were also availed in the hospitals established by the Government of Maharashtra for the benefit of the common public. Therefore, it is clear that Respondents have been discharging their duties in the Government establishment and, hence, were in the service of the Government. If that be so, in our considered opinion, they be entitled for exemption of upper age limit prescribed by Rule 3(b)(i)”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate Ashutosh M Kulkarni appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Abhijeet A. Desai appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, pursuant to the MPSC's refusal to recommend the candidates for appointment against unfilled vacancies on the ground that they had crossed the upper age limit prescribed in the 2015 recruitment advertisement, the dispute arose.
Interpreting Rule 3(b)(i) of the Directorate of Health Services Recruitment Rules, 1990, the Court held that the rule exempts candidates who are "already in the service of the Government" from the upper age limit and does not require them to be permanent or regular government servants.
The Bench observed that the petitioners had been appointed by government hospital authorities, discharged their duties in government establishments, and continuously served the State under the NHM. Therefore, they were "in the service of the Government" for the purpose of claiming age relaxation.
The Court further noted that the Maharashtra Government's Government Resolution dated March 14, 2024, recognising long-serving NHM contractual employees for age relaxation and absorption, reinforced the State's policy that such employees serve under the Government.
“…we are of the un-hesitant opinion that the Original Applicants, having served the State under the National Health Mission Scheme, were entitled to age relaxation, at least for the period of service rendered by them. If such a criteria is applied to the Original Applicants/Private Respondents herein, each of the three Original Applicants would undoubtedly meet the age criteria as on 1st November 2015. As such, their candidature could not have been rejected by the MPSC on the ground that the Original Applicants were over-aged. While the Court disagreed with the MAT's reasoning that age relaxation should be granted under the proviso to Rule 3(b), holding that such relaxation can only be granted by the Government, it upheld the Tribunal's operative direction requiring the MPSC to recommend the candidates for appointment”, the Bench noted.
Accordingly, the Court directed the MPSC and the State Government to implement the appointment process within six weeks.
Cause Title: Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Dr. Jagdish Anandrao Bhalerao & Ors. WP-1208-2025+
Appearances:
Petitioner: Ashutosh M Kulkarni, with Hrutik Chavan & Soham Salunk, Advocates.
Respondents: Abhijeet A. Desai, with Mohini A Desai (Rehpade), Vijay Singh, Daksha Punghera & Deepesh R, i/b Desai Legal LLP, Advocates.