Acting on its own initiative, the Punjab & Haryana High Court commenced proceedings concerning a troubling press report which alleged that the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, was grappling with a severe shortfall in nursing staff and hospital attendants. The court’s suo motu intervention was triggered by widespread media coverage suggesting that roughly sixty percent of sanctioned nursing positions remained unfilled, leading to overcrowding and patient care suffering as family members stepped in to fill the void. Notably, the High Court expressed concern that such chronic understaffing might undermine the hospital’s ability to provide adequate medical services and degrade the standard of nursing care.
During the hearing, PGIMER’s Senior Standing Counsel responded by submitting a comprehensive status report, aimed at refuting the assertion of massive vacancy. According to the institute, approximately ninety‑one point three percent of nursing cadre positions are filled; out of 2,597 approved posts, 2,373 have been staffed, leaving 224 vacancies. These unoccupied positions largely consist of senior nursing officer roles, many currently unfilled due to ongoing litigation before the Central Administrative Tribunal, rather than any neglect by the institute. The court noted that vacancies across other designations—such as nursing superintendent, deputy nursing superintendent, assistant nursing superintendent, nursing officer, and public health nursing officer—constitute only about eight percent, primarily due to recent retirements, resignations, or lack of eligible candidates for promotion. In this manner, the report firmly challenged the media’s claim of a sixty‑percent dearth in nursing numbers, painting a more nuanced picture of staffing reality.
However, the institute did concede that there was a notable shortfall in hospital attendants. Of the 519 sanctioned posts in that category, only 191 were accounted for, leaving 328 vacancies. To cope, PGIMER authorities have resorted to outsourcing non‑medical support services, with 1,093 housekeeping workers currently engaged through contractors, including 124 relievers to cover absences. Additionally, a temporary “time‑gap” arrangement has been instituted wherein housekeeping staff are employed to bridge critical positions that could not be filled directly. These actions serve as an interim measure to ensure that essential hospital upkeep and patient support functions continue without disruption.
Recognizing both the seriousness of the discrepancy in hospital attendant numbers and the contested nature of nursing staff figures, the High Court remarked that more clarity was needed through official recruitment norms. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry directed PGIMER to furnish the recruitment rules governing all affected categories, including nursing superintendents, nursing officers, public health nursing officers, and hospital attendants. The judges emphasized that such rules would help determine whether the existing vacancies were a result of procedural limitations, eligibility criteria, litigation, or recruitment freezes and, thereby, ascertain actionable causes that could be addressed administratively or judicially.
The court’s insistence on bringing recruitment rules on record reflects its concern that media reports can oversimplify or distort complex institutional realities. It highlighted the importance of basing judicial scrutiny on objective standards—such as sanctioned posts, eligibility conditions, age limits, required qualifications, promotion pathways, and recruitment methods—instead of relying solely on statistics. The bench expressed interest in understanding how the erstwhile outsourcing directive by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which discouraged direct recruitment in non‑core support roles, affected the filling of attendant positions, and whether that policy played a part in the current staffing gap.
While the institute’s senior counsel acknowledged that some posts remained vacant due to ineligibility of candidates or vacancy in feeder cadres, it maintained that no qualified applicant was overlooked. In many instances, retirements or voluntary exits had left positions temporarily unfilled while recruitment processes were underway. The court indicated that it would later have to scrutinize the pace of recruitment and whether delays in filling backlog posts were administrative inertia or adhered to statutory procedure.
The case also underscores the evolving role of the judiciary in overseeing institutional accountability. By proactively taking cognizance of distressing news reports, the High Court signaled a willingness to ensure that critical public institutions like PGIMER maintain staffing standards essential for high-quality healthcare delivery. The bench’s insistence on documentation from the institute reflects judicial awareness of how understaffing—especially among nursing and attendant ranks—can have real consequences, from overburdened staff to possible compromise of patient hygiene, comfort, or care standards.
Furthermore, the court’s proactive approach interplays with larger administrative questions about staffing strategy in elite government hospitals. Policies that allow outsourcing to address acute shortages, while useful, must balance quality control, accountability, contractual integrity, and labour welfare. The court’s scrutiny of PGIMER’s staffing data could also inform how similar institutions manage workforce planning, particularly in medico‑legal environments where patient safety and institutional reputation hinge on reliable staff presence.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court scheduled a follow‑up session to allow PGIMER time to collate and file the recruitment rules for all relevant healthcare cadres. The next appearance is expected to focus on an explanation from the institute about recruitment timelines, benchmark qualifications, promotion frameworks, contractual norms, and capacity to address outstanding vacancies. Should explanations be deemed inadequate, the court may advance remedial directions—ranging from accelerating recruitment to ensuring transparency in selection processes or addressing systemic bottlenecks.
In sum, while media reporting raised serious concerns regarding critical staffing levels at a premier hospital, the institute’s counter‑submission suggested that the issue was not as widespread as initially claimed, at least in nursing deployment. The significant gap in non‑clinical support staff, however, persists and remains under institutional review. By requiring disclosure of recruitment regulations, the High Court aims to dissect root‑cause factors—whether procedural, policy-induced, or bureaucratic—so as to ensure that staffing meets the dual imperatives of institutional integrity and public welfare.
This judicial intervention reflects a dual mission: upholding responsive governance in healthcare and ensuring that policy outcomes align with ground realities. The final disposition will not only determine whether PGIMER’s staffing challenges are within tolerable administrative limits, but may also shape wider understanding of how elite public hospitals staff themselves in an age of media scrutiny, labour constraints, and evolving policy frameworks.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.