The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a post-graduate diploma cannot be equated with a post-graduate degree when assessing eligibility for promotion, particularly in the context of appointments to the post of Assistant Professor under the Himachal Pradesh Medical Education Service Rules, 1999. The Court underscored that since the service rules stipulate “post graduation” as a qualification, and do not refer to diplomas, the phrase must be constricted to mean a post-graduation degree rather than a diploma.
The case involved Dr. Sunil Dutt, who completed his MBBS in 2006 and worked for several years. Later, he secured a postgraduate diploma and served as a Senior Resident, accruing teaching experience after the diploma. Subsequently, in 2024, he obtained an MD degree (i.e. a postgraduate degree) from Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College, Tanda, and continued his medical service. His contention was that under the 1999 Rules, 50 percent of the seats for Assistant Professor are to be filled by promotion of in-service doctors, and that his teaching service after the diploma ought to count toward eligibility. The Departmental Promotion Committee, however, declined to consider his teaching service prior to obtaining the MD for the purpose of promotion, recommending another candidate instead.
Challenging that decision, Dr. Dutt petitioned the High Court. The Court examined the Medical Education Service Rules and observed that the minimum qualification required for appointment to Assistant Professor is a postgraduate degree. Since the text of the Rules makes no reference to diplomas, the Court held it would be impermissible to read into them recognition of diplomas as equivalent to degrees. The Court further noted that the Rules expressly require three years of teaching experience after a postgraduate degree; thus, teaching experience acquired only after a diploma and prior to obtaining the MD could not satisfy that requirement.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the Departmental Promotion Committee’s determination that Dr. Dutt’s candidacy was ineligible, and rejected his claim to inclusion for the promotion. The High Court affirmed that service eligibility criteria tied to educational qualifications must be construed in strict adherence to the statutory or rule language, especially in competitive promotions in the public sector.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.