Contractual appointment of doctors at medical colleges has no legal sanctity: Orissa High Court
Cuttack: The Orissa High Court has ruled on a dispute involving the appointment of an Assistant Professor (Anaesthesiology) at MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur, holding that contractual appointments made outside the regular recruitment framework have no legal sanctity. Commenting on the contractual hiring, the Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging an earlier order and strongly criticised the State for bypassing regular recruitment procedures in filling teaching posts.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Dixit, Krishna Shripad, and Chittaranjan Dash observed on January 28, “It is not disputed before us that the extant rules of recruitment do not provide for contractual engagement.”
The Bench also questioned why the authorities adopted a contractual route without initiating regular selection as mandated by law. “We fail to understand how the state agency could go for contractual appointment without exploring the regular recruitment process ordained by law,” the bench observed.
According to a report by The Times of India, the appeal was filed by Shiwangi Mahato against a November 11, 2024, order of a single judge who had dismissed her challenge to an advertisement issued on November 5 by the MKCG Medical College principal to fill a post on a contractual basis.
Mahato claimed she had earlier been selected pursuant to an advertisement dated May 8, 2024, but her appointment could not be finalised due to an interim order passed by the High Court on May 20 that year.
The interim order had been issued in a petition filed by Rakesh Kumar Ludam, who challenged the May 8 advertisement on the ground that it was issued while he was already serving as an Assistant Professor on a contractual basis.
Examining the sequence of events, the Bench clarified that merely quashing a contractual advertisement does not create any “indefeasible right of appointment” for candidates selected through a process that has no sanction under law. While upholding the single judge’s decision, the Court remarked that even well-intentioned processes require legal compliance, observing—by quoting Oscar Wilde—that “there is scope for improvement even in heaven.”
The court rejected Mahato’s claim while stating that “cryptic advertisement for contractual appointment followed by a half-hearted walk-in interview conducted by persons not answering the description of selection committee under the extant rules, would not give a legally enforceable right to appointment to anyone, be it contractual or otherwise”.
The Court further noted that it was witnessing a “plethora of such cases” and stated that it “harshly deprecates the practice of contractual appointments in public employment” when undertaken in violation of recruitment norms.
Emphasising transparency and institutional credibility, the Bench observed that walk-in interviews often create scope for allegations of opacity, which erodes public confidence in the recruitment process. Such a method, the Court said, can only be adopted if expressly permitted under the applicable rules, something absent in the present case.
Dismissing the appeal, the Bench directed the registry to forward copies of the judgment to the Chief Secretary of Odisha and the Secretary of the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) for necessary action.
The Court also flagged the broader issue of long-pending vacancies in government posts, cautioning that irregular and delayed recruitment leads to eligible candidates becoming age-barred and ultimately affects public administration and governance, including the functioning of medical institutions.
