'Dropped Like a Hot Potato!' Madras HC Slams Govt, Orders Inclusion of Doctor in Dean Selection Panel

Justice N Anand Venkatesh slammed Tamil Nadu Health and Family Welfare department, the Director of Medical Education (DME) and the Dean, Madras Medical College & Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, EVR Periyar Salai, Chennai, stating that while considering the administrative experience of the doctor, her name has been 'dropped like a hot potato'. Additionally, expressing that such a stand taken by the respondents is quite unfortunate and cannot at all be entertained.

Dr Pasupathy had filed a writ petition challenging the government's decision to exclude her name from the panel for the Dean position. The government, in its order (G.O.(D) No.1037, Health and Family Welfare (A1) Department, dated October 1, 2024), had omitted her name, citing insufficient administrative experience. The petitioner sought to quash this order and requested the court to direct the authorities to include her in the panel.

The primary reason for Dr Pasupathy’s exclusion was the government's assertion that she did not possess the mandatory one-year administrative experience, as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.238, dated July 23, 2004. However, the petitioner argued that her tenure in various administrative roles met the requirement.

The petitioner provided the following evidence:

Served as Director, In-charge, Institute of Community Medicine, Madras Medical College (MMC) from May 1, 2020, to August 18, 2020.

Served as Chief Warden of the Women's Hostel in MMC from August 3, 2020, to June 9, 2021.

Served as Deputy Warden of the Ladies Hostel, Kilpauk Medical College from August 1, 2011, to July 31, 2013.

Served as Head of the Department (HOD) of Community Medicine at MMC from July 5, 2023, to March 15, 2024.

Despite these credentials, the government countered that only certain administrative positions counted towards the experience requirement. The authorities stated that Dr Pasupathy’s tenure as Director in-charge and Deputy Warden could not be considered under the notified administrative positions listed in G.O.Ms.No.238.

Justice N Anand Venkatesh, after examining the submissions, noted discrepancies in the government’s stance. The court observed that while the government had relied on Dr. Pasupathy’s role as HOD for official submissions to the National Medical Commission (NMC), it was now denying recognition of the same role in assessing her administrative experience.

The judgment highlighted that Dr Pasupathy’s signature was used to validate faculty members' availability for medical course recognition and seat renewals. The court observed;

"In the considered view of this Court, the records produced by the MMC would reveal that in all the records submitted by the MMC to the NMC, the petitioner has been shown as the HOD/Director of Community Medicine Department from 05.7.2023 onwards. For all practical purposes, wherever the signature of the HOD is required to endorse the availability of the faculty members in order to receive recognition, sanction and renewal of MBBS and PG seats in the Department of Community Medicine in the MMC, the petitioner alone signed as the HOD. On the strength of such signature subscribed by the petitioner as the HOD, the necessary recognition and the renewal had taken place."

The Court further noted that the government had relied on her as HOD for accreditation purposes but later excluded her from the Dean selection process.

"The respondents wanted the services of the petitioner to act as the HOD or the Director, In-charge, whenever they wanted the recognition and the renewal and the petitioner also subscribed her signature in each and every document starting from 05.7.2023. But, while considering the administrative experience of the petitioner, her name has been dropped like a hot potato and the respondents are turning around and coming up with a hyper technical stand that the petitioner holding the in-charge position cannot be taken into consideration and counted towards administrative experience. If this stand of the respondents is taken to its logical conclusion, then the recognition and the renewal that were obtained from the NMC based on the signature subscribed by the petitioner as the HOD will become questionable. It would mean that such recognition and renewal have been obtained by portraying an unqualified person as the HOD before the NMC."

Additionally, the court stated that the authorities’ position was inconsistent and lacked justification, and noted;

"The respondents have virtually used the services of the petitioner as the HOD whenever it is favourable to them and are denying her position as the HOD when it comes to recognizing her administrative experience. Such a stand taken by the respondents is quite unfortunate and cannot at all be entertained by this Court."

Given these findings, the court ruled in favor of Dr Pasupathy, stating that she indeed met the one-year administrative experience requirement. It observed;

"The amendment introduced to the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Medical Service prescribes for one year administrative experience by recognizing certain positions. If a person has gained that experience by assuming those positions individually or cumulatively, obviously it goes into the experience of that person and he cannot be rejected on hyper technicalities. This Court holds that the petitioner had experience as the HOD for 8 months and 10 days as on 15.3.2024 and the petitioner was also acting as the Director, In-charge from 01.5.2020 to 18.8.2020, which period must also be counted towards total administrative experience. If this is done, the petitioner obviously has fulfilled the requirement of one year administrative experience as was prescribed in the amendment introduced to the Special Rules."

Subsequently, the court quashed the impugned orders and directed the government to include her in the Dean selection panel within four weeks. It held;

"In the light of the above discussions, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned Government Order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(D) No.1037 dated 01.10.2024 in so far as the non inclusion of the petitioner's name in the panel for the year 2024-25 to the post of Dean in the Government Medical Colleges is concerned. This Court is also inclined to interfere with the proceedings of the first respondent dated 17.2.2025."

"For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders of the first respondent namely (i) G.O.(D) No.1037 Health and Family Welfare (A1) Department dated 01.10.2024 in so far as not including the petitioner's name is concerned and (ii) Letter No.8821466/A1/2024-2 dated 17.2.2025 are hereby quashed. As a consequence, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to include the name of the petitioner to the post of Dean in the Government Medical Colleges by placing her in the appropriate position in the panel for the year 2024-2025 as per the seniority in the CML within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMPs are closed."

To view the original judgement click on the link below: