Administrative posts for doctors after 62: High Court junks Plea

The petitioners highlighted that they have to give up the administrative posts after they attain the specified age adding their reluctance for working under their juniors after 62.

Jaipur: The petition filed in the State High Court seeking Amendment of Rule 56 of the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951 that barred government medical practitioners from taking administrative jobs after 62 has been dismissed by the court. The court refused to interfere with the government decision in this regard

It is reported that following the announcement by PM Modi, the retirement age of doctor had been increased to 65 years across the country. Following the announcement of increase, in April 2018, the Rajasthan took account notification stating that  doctors who have attained 62 years of age will not be able to hold administrative posts.

As per the notification, medical teachers are not allowed to be active on any of the eight administrative positions marked by the medical education department.

According to the TOI reports, the list of the positions includes principal and controller of medical colleges, additional principal, and medical superintendent of hospitals attached to medical colleges, dean and head of the department of respective specialties, director and deputy superintendent of hospitals attached to medical colleges.

Challenging the government decision, a petition was filed in the court by the former SMS medical College principal Dr UR Agarwal and others challenging the said  rule 56 of Rajasthan Service Rules 1951. The rule stated the conditions regarding the age of superannuation in respect of medical teachers of the Rajasthan medical services (collegiate branch) rules to 65 years

The petitioners highlighted that they have to give up the administrative posts after they attain the specified age adding their reluctance for working under their juniors after 62.

The two-member division bench of Justice M Rafiq and Goverdhan Bardhar said that the matter lies under the purview of the policy decision under the state government and hence the court could not interfere in the matter . The court has no clutch over the matter and so they choose not to interfere in it.