Although MCI Regulations Allow 30% Of Faculty Positions To Be Reserved For Non-Medical Candidates In Colleges, It Is Not Mandatory: J&K High Court
Clarifying the rules for recruitment in medical institutes, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that the Medical Council of India (MCI) guidelines allow for up to 30% of the total appointments in certain departments to be from non-medical faculty, but there is no legal obligation to do so.Respondent No.1, who was a non-medical candidate, had challenged the appointment on the basis that...
Clarifying the rules for recruitment in medical institutes, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that the Medical Council of India (MCI) guidelines allow for up to 30% of the total appointments in certain departments to be from non-medical faculty, but there is no legal obligation to do so.
Respondent No.1, who was a non-medical candidate, had challenged the appointment on the basis that the institute was under an obligation to appoint 30% from non-medical candidates. The court however said that the contention of Respondent No.1, challenging the appointment of a candidate belonging to the medical category was without any basis.
A bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Puneet Gupta made it clear that the rule referred to by Respondent No.1 was not a mandatory provision but discretionary and further observed that even if a medical institute appoints all teachers from the medical category in departments such as Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, and Pharmacology, it cannot be said that the institute has violated the 30% norm laid down in the regulations.
The court noted that the posts in question were advertised in 2016, and by virtue of the said advertisement, both candidates from the medical and non-medical streams could apply. The court said that Respondent No.1 had the lowest score in the merit list, whereas Respondent No.4 had the highest marks and was accordingly selected for the post.
The court observed that in the presence of more meritorious candidates with medical qualifications, the unfilled post could not have been given to Respondent No.1, who was last in the merit list, solely on the basis that he possessed a non-medical qualification.
The court held that the contention of Respondent No.1, requiring the institute to mandatorily fill 30% of the seats from non-medical candidates, was totally misconceived and contrary to the regulations provided by the MCI.
The court ruled that the single bench had earlier operated on the wrong premise that the institute was obligated to fill 30% of posts from the non-medical category in each discipline.
The court also said that it is at the discretion of the medical institution concerned to appoint non-medical faculty in some departments, such as Pharmacology, but while doing so, the institution must ensure that the number of non-medical teachers does not exceed 30% of the total number of posts in the department.
BACKGROUND
The case revolves around the appointment of an Assistant Professor in the Department of Clinical Pharmacology at SKIMS, Srinagar. Respondent No.1 applied for the post of Assistant Professor, but Respondent No.4 was appointed to the position. Respondent No.1 challenged the selection process, arguing that SKIMS was obligated to fill 30% of faculty positions in Clinical Pharmacology with non-medical candidates as per Medical Council of India (MCI) norms.
The Single Judge of the High Court, in its judgment, directed SKIMS to reconsider his case for appointment retrospectively, prompting the appellant to file intra-court appeals.
APPEARANCE:
Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Junaid Malik, Advocate for Petitioners
M.Y.Bhat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.A.Bhat, Advocate for R-1
Abdul Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG with Ms. Rahella Khan, Advocate FOR Respondents
Case-title: Dr. Majid Farooq vs Dr. Majid Farooq, 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 119
