Medical condition no ground to deny HoD post- HC grants relief to ophthalmology professor

Gwalior: Granting relief to an ophthalmology professor, the Madhya Pradesh High Court clarified that an advanced medical condition cannot be a valid or legal ground for denying the charge of Head of Department (HOD) to an eligible employee.

This observation was made by the HC bench comprising Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat while hearing the plea by Professor of Ophthalmology at Gajra Raja Medical College, who was denied the charge of HOD despite being the senior-most Professor solely because he had been suffering from cancer since 2020.

"Merely because the petitioner is undergoing treatment for a medical condition cannot be a valid ground to deny him the charge of Head of Department, particularly when the respondents themselves have permitted him to continue as Professor and have not placed any material on record to establish that he is medically unfit to discharge the duties attached to the office. More significantly, the petitioner had already discharged the functions of Head of Department from December, 2020 to September, 2023 after the diagnosis of his illness," observed the HC bench.

"The petitioner has been suffering from cancer since the year 2020. Even thereafter, no show-cause notice has ever been issued regarding his work or efficiency. This clearly shows that the petitioner has been continuously discharging his official duties satisfactorily," further noted the bench.

Case Background:

The petitioner, a Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology at Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior, has been serving the institution for about 35 years. He is the senior-most Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology and is due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation in December, 2027. He was diagnosed with Stage-IV cancer in 2020.

According to a circular dated 05.08.2023, issued by the Department of Medical Education, all Government Medical Colleges in the State were directed to appoint the Head of Department based on seniority with a rotational tenure of two years. As per the circular, the senior-most Professor of the concerned department is required to be appointed as the HoD.

It was alleged that when the petitioner submitted a representation on 07.01.2026 requesting the competent authority to appoint him as HoD Ophthalmology in terms of the circular dated 05.08.2023, being the senior-most Professor of the department, the authorities rejected the petitioner's representation on 29.04.2026 based on the grounds of the petitioner's medical condition and a disciplinary penalty imposed on him during 2015-2016.

Challenging this, the petitioner approached the HC, and his counsel argued that the petitioner has continuously and efficiently discharged his academic, clinical, and administrative duties without any interruption; his work has never been affected, and no show-cause notice has been issued to him regarding his work or performance by the competent authority. In fact, the petitioner was also given the charge of HoD from December 2020 to September 2023 and during the said period, no show-cause was issued to him, argued the counsel

It was further submitted that while all the other departments had implemented the circular dated 05.08.2023 by giving the rotational charge of the Head of Department on the basis of seniority, the same was not followed in the case of the petitioner.

The counsel pointed out that there were only two Professors in the Ophthalmology department, and after the completion of the tenure of the other Professor, the petitioner became entitled to be appointed as the HoD.

On the other hand, the counsel for the authorities submitted that the circular dated 05.08.2023 itself provides that where there are adverse remarks by the Dean or a past disciplinary record, the competent authority may pass over such person and appoint the next eligible senior Professor on a rotational basis.

The counsel pointed to the past record of professional misconduct by the petitioner, who was suspended for the alleged negligence in the discharge of official duties and after departmental enquiry, was imposed with a penalty of withholding one annual increment.

Further, it was argued that seniority alone does not confer a vested right to be appointed as the HoD, and the assignment of the charge of HoD is purely an administrative arrangement made in the interest of efficient administration. The counsel also argued that since the petitioner is undergoing treatment for Stage-IV Prostate Cancer, he may not be able to discharge the higher administrative responsibilities efficiently. It was also contended that the petitioner himself relied on his medical condition while seeking interim protection against his transfer, which indicates that he is not in a position to discharge the additional responsibilities.

It was also submitted that assessment of the operational fitness of a medical teacher for administrative responsibilities falls within the administrative discretion of the competent authority and is exercised in the public interest.

Observations by the High Court:

After perusing the case details, the HC bench observed that the petitioner was diagnosed with Stage-IV Carcinoma Prostate in 2020. However, after undergoing the requisite treatment, the petitioner resumed and continued to discharge his academic, clinical and administrative responsibilities.

"The material placed on record does not indicate that the petitioner's medical condition has adversely affected the discharge of his official duties. It is not the case of the respondents that at any point of time after the diagnosis of the illness, the petitioner was issued any show-cause notice in the discharge of his duties on account of his medical condition," observed the bench.

The court also perused the circular dated 05.08.2023 and observed, "It is also an admitted position that the petitioner had earlier functioned as the Head of the Department of Ophthalmology from December, 2020 to September, 2023. During the said period, no adverse material has been brought on record to indicate that his functioning as Head of Department was unsatisfactory. No departmental enquiry was initiated, no complaint was received and no showcause notice was issued regarding his performance while discharging the responsibilities of the said office/HOD. Despite the policy dated 05.08.2023 and despite the petitioner being the senior-most Professor in the Department, he was not appointed as Head of the Department."

Accordingly, the court held that merely because the petitioner is undergoing treatment for a medical condition cannot be a valid ground to deny him the charge of Head of Department, particularly when the authorities themselves have permitted him to continue as Professor and have not placed any material on record to establish that he is medically unfit to discharge the duties attached to the office.

The Court also took note of the fact that the circular dated 05.08.2023 is being uniformly implemented in respect of other departments by assigning the charge of Head of Department based on seniority and rotation. "The respondents have failed to disclose any rational basis for departing from the said policy only in the case of the petitioner," the High Court noted.

Regarding the argument that the petitioner was earlier penalised for misconduct, the bench noted, "It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier discharged the duties of Head of Department from December, 2020 to September, 2023. During the said period, no show-cause notice was issued to him and no disciplinary action was taken regarding his performance as Head of Department. Even at that time, the respondents were fully aware of the punishment order dated 26.07.2016, whereby the penalty of withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect had been imposed upon the petitioner. Despite the said penalty, the respondents themselves considered the petitioner fit and entrusted him with the charge of Head of Department."

The bench held that the circular dated 05.08.2023 does not prohibit the appointment of a senior-most Professor as Head of Department merely because he is suffering from a serious medical ailment.

"The respondents have also not shown that there has been any adverse change in the petitioner's service record after he earlier discharged the duties of Head of Department. Once the respondents themselves had earlier entrusted the petitioner with the charge of Head of Department despite the punishment order dated 26.07.2016 and despite his medical condition, the same grounds could not have been relied upon subsequently to deny him the benefit under the circular dated 05.08.2023," it observed at the outset.

The Court further noted that despite being the senior-most Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology, the petitioner was not appointed as the HoD. Instead, the other Professor, who is junior to the petitioner and was earlier his student, was appointed as the HOD by an order dated 23.08.2023 for a tenure of two years.

"Considering the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 29.04.2026 rejecting the petitioner's representation is hereby quashed," ordered the bench.

It further directed, "Since, it is not disputed that the petitioner is the senior-most Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology and it is also not the case of the respondents that Dr. *** is more suitable than the petitioner, the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner as the Head of the Department, Ophthalmology, Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior, with immediate effect, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/20/mp-hc-hod-post-360707.pdf

Also Read: Plea in MP High Court Seeks Uniform Residency Scheme Across Medical Colleges