MCI Regulations For Medical Institutes To Necessarily Recruit 30% Faculty From Non-Medical Stream Is Not Mandatory: Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court set aside the Order of the Single Bench which allowed a non-medical candidate’s challenge against the process of appointment.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that the MCI Regulations for medical institutes to recruit 30% faculty from non-medical stream is not mandatory.
The Court clarified that it is not mandatory for a medical college/medical institution to necessarily fill up 30% of the total number of posts in a discipline or even in the department by appointing non-medical candidates. The Minimum Qualification for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 (MCI Regulations) provided that provides that in medical departments, the appointment of non-medical teachers to the extent of 30% of the total number of posts in the department is permissible.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta held, “In the face of availability of more meritorious candidates, though with medical qualifications, the unfilled post could not have been filled up by appointing respondent NO.1, who was last in the merit, only for the reason that he possessed non-medical qualification. The contention of respondent No.1 that 30% of the posts of Assistant Professor in Clinical Pharmacology ought to have been mandatorily filled up from non-medical candidates is totally misconceived and contrary to the Regulations we have discussed elaborately herein above.”
Senior Advocate Jahangir Iqbal Ganai appeared for the Appellant, while Senior Advocate M.Y. Bhat represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Respondent had applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Non-Medical) in Clinical Pharmacology in response to the Advertisement Notification. Despite being interviewed, he was not selected, as the Apical Selection Committee found him ineligible, having secured only 48 points, below the 50-point benchmark. He challenged the decision, leading the Single Bench to direct SKIMS to declare his result and take necessary follow-up action. SKIMS complied, but the Respondent’s claim for appointment was rejected.
Subsequently, SKIMS issued an Advertisement Notification, inviting fresh applications for one post of Assistant Professor in Clinical Pharmacology (Open Merit). The Respondent did not apply but instead challenged both the consideration order rejecting his claim and the fresh advertisement. The Single, accordingly, directed SKIMS to appoint the Respondent retrospectively from the date the selected medical candidate was appointed in 2018.
Court’s Reasoning
The Division Bench clarified that “The word “may” used in Article-2 clearly indicates that it is in the discretion of the Medical Institution to appoint non-medical teachers also in some of the departments like, Anatomy, physiology, pharmacology etc. However, while making appointment of nonmedical teachers even in the aforesaid departments, Medical Institute shall ensure that number of such non-medical teachers appointed in the aforesaid departments does not exceed 30% of the total number of posts in the department.”
“A fortiori, there is no mandate upon the medical institute to recruit necessarily 30% of the total number of posts in the department of Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology etc. by appointing non-medical teachers,” it stated.
The High Court noted, “Even if, a medical Institute appoints, in the department of Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology etc, all teachers from the medical category, it cannot be said that the Institute has violated 30% norm laid down in the Regulations. 30% recruitment from non-medical teachers is only an extent to which the non-medical teachers may be appointed in some of the departments of the medical institute like pharmacology etc.”
“All the teachers in the department of Pharmacology could be from medical stream and there is no mandate of the Regulations to necessarily and mandatorily appoint 30% of the total posts of the department from non-medical students. It is only where non-medical teachers, in view of their merit, are appointed in the department, it is to be ensured by the medical institute concerned that their number does not exceed 30% of the total posts in the department. Viewed thus, the entire edifice of the case of respondent No.1 built on this mis-interpretation of the Regulations would come crumbling down,” the Court explained.
Consequently, the Court held, “In the context of factual matrix obtaining in the case, we hold that respondent No.1 never acquired any right to be selected and appointed as Assistant Professor in Clinical Pharmacology which remained unfilled in selection process initiated by the SKIMS vide advertisement Notification and, therefore, respondent No.1, who had not participated in the selection process will have no locus standi to challenge the advertisement notification in which the appellant claims to have emerged successful candidate for the lone notified post.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Majid Farooq v. Mushtaq Ahmad & Ors. (LPA No.244/2023)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Jahangir Iqbal Ganai; Advocate Junaid Malik
Respondents: Senior Advocate M.Y. Bhat; Advocate R.A. Bhat
