MPPSC Can't Reject Doctors For PG Additional Registration Not Prescribed In Recruitment Advertisement: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Tuesday (January 27), allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by qualified medical practitioners challenging the rejection of their candidature in the recruitment process conducted by the MP Public Service Commission for the post of Medical Officer (Grade-I) and Specialist Doctors under the Public Health and Medical Education Department.

The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed that the rejection of the candidature at the document verification stage or post declaration of provisional results on basis of an unstated eligibility criteria 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".

The bench thus held,

"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".

As per the recruitment advertisement, the essential eligibility criteria included possession of a recognized Post Graduation qualification in the concerned speciality, along with permanent registration with the State Medical Council.

The counsel for the petitioners contended that neither the original advertisement nor any contemporaneous corrigendum required candidates to possess or produce a separate 'Post Graduation Additional Registration Certificate' as on cut off date fixed as April 21, 2025.

Despite submitting their applications within the prescribed time, several candidates faced rejection as in some cases the portal closed prior to the declaration of PG results. While in other cases, the candidates acquired PG qualification, endorsement by the Medical Council, but were delayed due to administrative reasons beyond their control.

The bench had earlier passed an interim order in some cases, permitting the petitioners to submit applications and participate in the selection process, including interviews, subject to the final outcome of the cases.

However, the candidates were subsequently rejected on the sole ground that the 'PG Additional Registration' had been obtained after the cut-off date.

The bench reiterated the settled principle of service jurisdiction that the distinction between essential and desirable qualifications is well recognized and a desirable qualification cannot be treated as mandatory unless the recruitment rules or advertisement clearly and unambiguously provide so.

The court observed that the mere use of the word "mandatory" in relation to the qualification, without categorising it as an essential condition, creates ambiguity. The bench added;

"If the respondents intended to make possession of “Post Graduate Additional Registration” an essential condition as on the cut-off date, the same ought to have been clearly, expressly, and unequivocally incorporated in the advertisement".

The court also rejected the MPPSC's reliance on the Government Gazette notification, holding that eligibility conditions must be explicitly stated in the recruitment advertisement itself. The bench held that the candidates cannot be expected to infer eligibility requirements from extraneous sources.

The bench remarked, "The impugned rejection, having been effected during document verification or after declaration of provisional results, on the basis of a condition not forming part of the notified eligibility criteria, clearly amounts to changing the rules of the game after the game has begun, which is impermissible in law".

The bench thus held that the rejection was impermissible and therefore allowed the petitions. The bench also directed the competent authority to verify whether the petitioners possessed the required PG qualification recognized by the Medical Council of India and whether the result was declared on or before April 21, 2025.

Case Title: Dr Vijay v MPPCS [W.P. No.12337/2025]

Click here to read/download the Order