Madras HC upholds appointment of differently-abled Siddha doctor under SC quota

However, when his request was later considered, it was rejected because the selection process had been carried out properly. Against this rejection and the provisional selection list, Dr. Palavesakumar filed another petition in 2020.

The single bench, while hearing this plea, found that meritorious Scheduled Caste candidates, who should have been accommodated in open category vacancies, were instead adjusted against reserved vacancies. The court held that such an approach was “nothing but illegal” and noted that the MSRB had wrongly applied the special reservation policy. The bench, therefore, directed the government to appoint Dr. Palavesakumar as Assistant Medical Officer (Siddha) against the existing general vacancy in February 2023, reports TOI. 

"The recruiting agency ought to have applied the 4% horizontal reservation policy meant for differently-abled candidates against each vertical (social reservation quota) category. Though there are other SC candidates who also qualify if the correct method is applied, only the petitioner has approached the court," said the Single Bench as reported by TNIE. 

Challenging this decision, the MSRB preferred an appeal in 2024. The division bench, however, upheld the single judge’s ruling, observing that the board had clubbed all differently-abled candidates into one slot and failed to follow proper reservation rules.

"The single judge had elaborately dealt with the contentions of the appellant and had rightly directed the appointment of Palavesakumar as assistant medical officer (siddha) against the existing general vacancy. The court did not find any infirmity in the order passed by the single bench," observed the division bench. It concluded that Dr. Palavesakumar was entitled to the appointment and dismissed the appeal.

Also read- Madras HC allows doctors to Join Super Speciality Course, Finish Bond Terms Later