The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, issued notice to the Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh in a writ petition challenging the validity of the Uttar Pradesh X-Ray Technician Service Rules, 1986, insofar as they restrict eligibility for appointment to the post of X-Ray Technician only to candidates holding a diploma in X-Ray Technology. The petition was filed by four individuals who possess a Bachelor of Medical Radiology Diagnosis and Imaging Technology degree and who alleged that the service rules arbitrarily exclude them from consideration for public employment despite their qualifications being relevant and widely accepted in the medical field. Upon a prima facie assessment of the issues raised, the Court found that the challenge merited consideration and accordingly directed the issuance of notice, observing that the matter involved important questions relating to equality and eligibility in public service.
The petitioners contended that Rule 8 of the 1986 Rules, which prescribes the qualification for appointment as an X-Ray Technician, is unconstitutional to the extent that it confines eligibility solely to diploma holders and excludes degree holders in medical radiology and imaging technology. According to the petitioners, the exclusion of BMRD & IT degree holders has no rational basis and results in arbitrary discrimination, violating the constitutional guarantees of equality before law and equal opportunity in matters of public employment. They argued that the degree they hold is not only relevant to the duties of an X-Ray Technician but is also of a higher academic level than the diploma prescribed under the Rules, making their exclusion unjustified and unreasonable.
The writ petition also challenged the decisions of expert committees constituted by the State, which had refused to treat the BMRD & IT degree as equivalent to the diploma required under the service rules. The petitioners sought quashing of those expert committee decisions, asserting that they were arbitrary and lacked proper consideration of the curriculum, scope, and professional relevance of the degree. The petition emphasized that the refusal to recognize equivalence had the effect of permanently barring a category of qualified candidates from participating in recruitment processes for X-Ray Technician posts in the State, thereby denying them equal access to public employment.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the BMRD & IT degree is widely recognized and accepted across the country by several premier medical institutions and healthcare establishments. It was argued that the degree holders are routinely engaged in radiology and imaging services in reputed institutions, performing duties that are substantially similar to, and in many cases more advanced than, those performed by diploma holders. The petitioners asserted that the continued exclusion of such degree holders under the Uttar Pradesh service rules stands in stark contrast to the evolving standards in the healthcare sector, where higher academic qualifications in radiology and imaging technology are increasingly being acknowledged and valued.
The petitioners further highlighted that other States have taken a more inclusive approach by amending their respective service rules to recognize the BMRD & IT degree as a valid qualification for appointment to the post of X-Ray Technician. It was submitted that service rules in other jurisdictions, which were originally framed on lines similar to those of Uttar Pradesh, have since been updated to reflect changes in educational standards and professional requirements. The failure of Uttar Pradesh to similarly amend its rules, according to the petitioners, has resulted in discriminatory treatment of degree holders without any reasonable justification.
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking judicial review of the statutory framework governing recruitment to the post of X-Ray Technician in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners argued that the impugned rule creates an artificial and unreasonable classification between diploma holders and degree holders, despite both categories being trained in radiology and imaging technology. According to them, the classification does not have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the service rules, which is to ensure competent technical personnel in medical imaging services.
The High Court took note of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and observed that the challenge raised important constitutional issues that required examination. The Bench indicated that, at a prima facie level, the petition disclosed arguable grounds regarding the exclusion of BMRD & IT degree holders and the refusal of the State to recognize equivalence. In view of these considerations, the Court directed issuance of notice to the Advocate General so that the State could respond to the constitutional challenge and justify the eligibility criteria prescribed under the 1986 Rules.
The petitioners also sought a declaration directing the State Government to recognize the BMRD & IT degree as equivalent to the diploma in X-Ray Technician for the purpose of recruitment and appointment under the service rules. They argued that without such recognition, a growing number of graduates in radiology and imaging technology would continue to be excluded from public sector employment in the State, despite being trained for precisely the kind of work performed by X-Ray Technicians in government hospitals and medical institutions.
The Court recorded that the petition was not limited to an individual grievance but raised broader questions concerning service jurisprudence, recognition of educational qualifications, and the obligation of the State to periodically review and update service rules in light of developments in education and professional practice. The Bench observed that the petitioners’ challenge could not be dismissed at the threshold, as it involved examination of whether the continued exclusion of degree holders could withstand scrutiny under constitutional principles of equality and non-arbitrariness.
In issuing notice, the High Court signaled that it would examine whether the expert committee decisions refusing equivalence were based on sound reasoning and whether the State had adequately considered the nature and content of the BMRD & IT degree. The Court also indicated that it would consider the impact of such exclusion on the petitioners’ right to compete for public employment and whether the service rules, as presently framed, unjustly restrict the pool of eligible candidates.
The matter was posted for further hearing, with the expectation that the State would file its response explaining the rationale behind the eligibility criteria and the continued reliance on the diploma qualification to the exclusion of degree holders. The proceedings thus set the stage for a detailed judicial examination of the validity of the Uttar Pradesh X-Ray Technician Service Rules, 1986, in the context of contemporary educational qualifications in the field of medical radiology and imaging technology.
Overall, the High Court’s decision to issue notice reflects its prima facie view that the challenge raised by BMRD & IT degree holders warrants serious consideration. The case brings into focus the tension between static service rules and evolving educational standards, as well as the constitutional requirement that eligibility criteria for public employment must be fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. The outcome of the proceedings is expected to determine whether degree holders in medical radiology and imaging technology can seek parity with diploma holders for appointment as X-Ray Technicians under the existing statutory framework in Uttar Pradesh.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.