Medical Condition No Ground To Deny HOD Post If Employee Is Fit To Continue As Professor: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Court quashed an arbitrary order denying the senior-most Professor his rightful administrative charge based on an old, condoned penalty and a treated medical ailment.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an advanced medical condition cannot form a valid or legal ground to deny an eligible employee the charge of Head of Department (HOD), especially when the state authorities have permitted them to continue in their primary academic role as a Professor.
The Court observed that unless material evidence is produced to conclusively establish operational or medical unfitness, departing from a mandatory seniority-cum-rotation policy constitutes active discrimination.
The Court further clarified that a past disciplinary penalty cannot be retroactively cited to bypass seniority if the employer had already condoned the record by previously entrusting the employee with the exact same administrative responsibilities.
The Bench of Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat held, "Merely because the petitioner is undergoing treatment for a medical condition cannot be a valid ground to deny him the charge of Head of Department, particularly when the respondents themselves have permitted him to continue as Professor and have not placed any material on record to establish that he is medically unfit to discharge the duties attached to the office. More significantly, the petitioner had already discharged the functions of Head of Department from December, 2020 to September, 2023 after the diagnosis of his illness."
Senior Advocate Nidhi Patankar appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate K.K. Prajapati appeared for the State.
Brief Facts
The petitioner, a senior Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology at Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior, approached the High Court challenging the rejection of his claim to be appointed as the Head of the Department (HOD). The petitioner had served the institution for nearly thirty-five years and was the senior-most Professor in the department. The Department of Medical Education had issued a executive circular regulating government medical colleges across the State, directing that the charge of HOD be assigned strictly on the basis of seniority-cum-rotation for a tenure of two years.
The petitioner had previously discharged the duties of HOD satisfactorily, and no adverse material or complaints arose during that tenure. However, the respondent authorities departed from the mandatory policy and appointed a junior Professor as the HOD. The petitioner previously approached the High Court, which directed the respondents to decide his representation. Consequent to the court's direction, the competent authority passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim primarily on two grounds: his past medical history of Stage-IV Carcinoma Prostate (Cancer) and a past disciplinary penalty of withholding of one annual increment. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Contentions of the Parties
The Petitioner contended that he was the senior-most Professor in the department and was fully entitled to be appointed as the HOD under the mandatory seniority-cum-rotation policy uniformly implemented across the State. It was submitted that the grounds taken by the respondents were wholly extraneous and untenable, as the petitioner had continuously discharged his clinical, academic, and administrative duties without any interruption or show-cause notice.
It was further argued that both the medical condition and the past disciplinary penalty were within the knowledge of the respondents when they previously entrusted the petitioner with the charge of HOD, during which period his performance was unblemished.
Per contra, the respondents argued that assignment of the charge of HOD is purely an administrative arrangement made in the interest of efficient administration, and seniority alone does not confer a vested right upon an employee. It was submitted that the state circular itself permits the competent authority to pass over a candidate in cases involving past disciplinary records or adverse remarks by the Dean.
The respondents further contended that because the petitioner was undergoing treatment for an advanced medical condition, he might not possess the operational fitness to shoulder heavy administrative responsibilities, especially since he had previously cited his health to seek interim protection against a transfer order.
Observations & Findings of the Court
The Court observed that the petitioner was admittedly the senior-most Professor in the department and had rendered long, unblemished service to the institution.
It was held that a serious medical ailment cannot form a valid or legal ground to deny an employee the charge of HOD, particularly when the state authorities themselves permitted him to continue as a Professor and failed to bring any material on record to establish medical unfitness.
The Court noted that the respondents had actively practiced discrimination, as the mandate of the rotational policy was being uniformly implemented in all other departments of government medical colleges across the State, leaving the petitioner as an isolated exception without any rational basis.
The Bench further found that the past disciplinary record of withholding one annual increment was a spent force, as the respondents themselves had condoned the past penalty by appointing the petitioner as the HOD subsequent to the punishment order.
"The circular dated 05.08.2023 does not prohibit appointment of a senior-most Professor as Head of Department merely because he is suffering from a serious medical ailment. The respondents have also not shown that there has been any adverse change in the petitioner's service record after he earlier discharged the duties of Head of Department. Once the respondents themselves had earlier entrusted the petitioner with the charge of Head of Department despite the punishment order dated 26.07.2016 and despite his medical condition, the same grounds could not have been relied upon subsequently to deny him the benefit under the circular dated 05.08.2023", the Court held.
Consequently, the High Court held that the impugned order passed by the competent authority was wholly arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The Court quashed the impugned rejection order and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner as the Head of the Department of Ophthalmology with immediate effect.
Cause Title: Dr Devendra Kumar Shakya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. [Neutral Citation:2026:MPHC-GWL:21103]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Nidhi Patankar and Advocate Abhay Jain
Respondents: Advocates K.K. Prajapati and Rajendra Singh Dhakad