Two candidates belonging to the reserved categories had approached the High Court alleging that the Government advertisement did not earmark reservations for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates for the selection of assistant professors in the super-speciality posts.
However, the HC bench comprising Justice Biraja Prasanna Satpathy refused to interfere in the process after finding no illegalities in the advertisement, The Hindu has reported.
An advertisement was issued by Odisha Public Service Commission in 2021 for the recruitment to the post of assistant professor (Super Speciality). Challenging this, the petitioners approached the HC bench and argued, "No reservation was provided for any of the candidates belonging to reserve category and all the 19 posts so advertised were meant for unreserved candidates, the process of selection so undertaken by the Commission is vitiated."
Also Read: Recruitment Process for Assistant Professors Challenged- HC Issues Notice to Cancer Institute's Director
During the hearing of the matter, the State Government argued that the reservation was not applicable to the posts of assistant professor in super specialty posts as it was not a base level post. It was argued by the Government's counsel that as per the Medical Council of India norms, assistant professor in Super Speciality comes under Level 12 and assistant professor in broad speciality comes under Level 11.
"Since in the impugned advertisement the post carries the scale of pay of Level 12, the post (assistant professor) cannot be treated as the base level post or in the lowest of the rank against teaching post," argued the counsels.
Taking note of the submissions, Justice Satpathy observed, "Since in terms of the decision in the case of Indra Sawhney so followed in Preeti Srivastav and Faculty Association of AIIMS as cited (supra), no step has been taken by the State as to whether reservation can be followed against recruitment to the post of assistant professor in Super Speciality, it is the view of this court that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the opposition parties (government and OPSC) while issuing the impugned advertisement."
Refusing to interfere in the process, the bench ruled, "Accordingly, this court is not inclined to interfere with the recruitment process so undertaken by the Commission pursuant to the advertisement. Consequentially, both the writ petitions fail and is dismissed accordingly."
Also Read: Orissa HC Rules Denial of Passport NOC Over Disciplinary Case Violates Doctor’s Right to Travel and Liberty
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.