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

Madurai: Upholding an order passed by a single judge granting relief to a differently-abled Siddha practitioner belonging to a Scheduled Caste community by directing the government to appoint him to the post of Assistant Medical Officer (Siddha), the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dimissed the appeal stating that it found no infirmity in the order passed by the single bench.

While hearing the appeal preferred by the Medical Services Recruitment Board (MSRB) challenging the 2023 order, the division bench comprising Justices J Nisha Banu and S Srimathy observed that the petitioner, Dr. P Palavesakumar, should be given the appointment since the board had wrongly applied the reservation policy and clubbed all differently-abled candidates into a single category.

The case pertains to Dr. Palavesakumar, who completed his MD (Siddha), applied in 2017 for the post of Assistant Medical Officer (Siddha) when the MSRB issued a recruitment notification. He secured 57 marks out of 100 in the written exam but was not selected.

Also read- Kidney Transplant Racket: State submits action taken report to Madras HC

Challenging the provisional selection list, he approached the High Court’s Madurai Bench in 2017. During the final hearing, he restricted his relief, and in 2019, the court directed the authorities to consider his claim whenever a vacancy was available.

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