Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a recent decision, the Patna High Court dismissed three writ petitions challenging the upper age limit for recruitment to the posts of Senior Residents and Tutors in Bihar’s government medical colleges. The petitioners, who are doctors, argued that the Bihar Government’s prescribed age limits were inconsistent with the National Medical Commission (NMC) regulations. The court, however, upheld the state’s recruitment rules, affirming that the State is within its rights to set a more stringent age limit than the NMC’s maximum threshold.
The controversy centered around an advertisement (Annexure-P/13) issued for the appointment of Senior Residents/Tutors, where the upper age limit was fixed at 37 years for general candidates, 40 for backward and extremely backward classes, and 42 for SC/ST candidates. The petitioners contended this violated the NMC’s 2022 regulations, which recommend a maximum age of 45 years for initial appointment.
They also raised concerns over a provision (clause (f) of Rule 6 of Chapter 6 of the 2013 Rules as amended) that allows a five-year age relaxation for doctors already employed in the Bihar State Health Service. The petitioners feared that SC/ST candidates, with both category and service-based relaxation, could exceed the 45-year limit set by NMC, allegedly violating the regulation.
However, the court clarified that the NMC regulations serve as benchmarks for ensuring minimum standards and cannot be diluted, but states are not barred from setting stricter criteria. Relying on several precedents—including Dr. Nishant v. State of Bihar (2024), Dr. Spriha Smriti v. State of Bihar (2018), and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dr. Rajendra Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2020)—the bench reiterated that a state can enforce a more rigorous standard than what is prescribed by the NMC.
The court further noted that the five-year age relaxation for serving government doctors is a valid policy decision aimed at valuing their service and experience. It does not breach the principles of equality, nor does it automatically lead to NMC regulation violations unless such appointments are made.
Since none of the petitioners were employed in government service or belonged to SC/ST categories benefiting from the relaxation, the court found their objections speculative. It ruled that a violation, if any, could only be challenged by an actual aggrieved candidate after an appointment is made.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This ruling carries important implications for both aspiring medical educators and the Bihar government. It reaffirms the State’s autonomy in establishing eligibility criteria for public recruitment, as long as minimum national standards are not diluted. The decision also encourages serving medical professionals by recognizing their experience and providing reasonable relaxations without inviting legal scrutiny.
For the general public, especially in Bihar where medical staff shortages persist, the ruling ensures that the recruitment process continues without delay, avoiding potential disruptions in healthcare services at government institutions.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether Bihar’s upper age limit for recruitment of Senior Residents/Tutors violates NMC regulations?
- Court’s Decision: No violation; the State may impose stricter rules than NMC’s minimum standards.
- Whether five-year relaxation for in-service government doctors is discriminatory?
- Court’s Decision: No; it is a valid policy choice and justified due to their experience.
- Can appointments exceeding NMC’s age limit be challenged in advance?
- Court’s Decision: No; such a challenge can only be raised by affected individuals after actual appointments.
Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)
- Dr. Spriha Smriti v. State of Bihar, L.P.A. No.1105 of 2017
- Dr. Nishant v. State of Bihar, C.W.J.C. No.6780 of 2024
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)
- Dr. (Mrs.) Anupama Singh v. State of Bihar, C.W.J.C. No.7297 of 2017
- Md. Ali Muzaffar v. State of Bihar, 2012 (3) PLJR 419
- Dr. Rajendra Chaudhary v. State of U.P., (2020) 13 SCC 278
Case Title
Multiple Writ Petitions (Dr. Niraj Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and Others)
Case Number
CWJC No. 17771 of 2024, CWJC No. 16484 of 2024, CWJC No. 16561 of 2024
Citation(s)– 2025 (1) PLJR 176
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble The Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nani Tagia
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Jagjit Roshan, Advocate — For Petitioners (CWJC No. 17771 & 16561 of 2024)
- Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate — For Petitioners (CWJC No. 16484 of 2024)
- Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General — For Respondents
- Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Advocate — For BCECEB
- Mr. Mithilesh Kr. Pandey, AC to GP-3 — For Respondents
Link to Judgment
MTUjMTc3NzEjMjAyNCMxI04=-Qo5JZwCDCf8=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
