Allahabad High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Vires Of 'UP X-Ray Rules' For Non-Inclusion Of BMRD Degree For Technician Post

Finding a prima facie case for consideration, a Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai posted the matter for February 27.

Briefly, the writ petition has been filed by 4 candidates who hold a Bachelor of Medical Radiology Diagnosis and Imaging Technology (BMRD & IT). They are challenging Rule 8 of the 1986 Rules, which restricts eligibility only to 'Diploma' holders, thereby barring candidates with higher/equivalent degrees from recruitment.

The petitioners have sought the quashing of orders passed by State Expert Committees in 2011 and 2014, which had refused to treat the BMRD/IT degree as equivalent to the Diploma in X-Ray Technician.

The petitioners pray for a direction to the State Government to treat and declare the degree of BMRD/IT as equivalent to the Diploma in X-Ray Technician for all purposes of recruitment and appointment under the 1986 Rules.

Advocate Mayankar Singh, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the exclusion (under Rule 8) amounts to 'hostile discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

It was argued that the BMRD/IT degree is recognized and accepted in several States and by various medical institutions across the country like AIIMS (New Delhi & Bhubaneshwar), PGIMER Chandigarh and SGPGI Lucknow.

The bench was also apprised that the X-Ray Technician Service Rules of the State of Bihar were originally framed on the same lines as the Uttar Pradesh X-Ray Technician Service Rules, 1986; however, in 2020, the state included the degree of BMRD & IT as a qualification for appointment to the post of X-Ray Technician.

Against this backdrop, it was argued that despite such nationwide recognition and the progressive stand taken by similarly situated institutions in various States, the State of UP had 'arbitrarily' failed to amend Rule 8 of the 1986 Rules so as to include the degree of BMRD/IT, which, the petitioners argue, results in hostile discrimination against the petitioners.

The matter is listed for the next hearing on February 27.

Advocates Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava and Prashant Puri are to appear on behalf of the respondents.