Reservation Controversy in Government Medical Colleges: Upheld Age Limit Increase

The controversial case revolving around reservations and age limit increase in Government Medical Colleges in Uttar Pradesh has been decided by the Supreme Court. The case involved a dispute between the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Writ Petitioners regarding reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, as well as the enhancement of the upper age limit for professor posts. The Court’s decision upholding the age limit increase sheds light on the complex issues surrounding recruitment practices in medical education institutions.


  • Writ Petitioners raised concerns about no posts being reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Class candidates.
  • They also questioned the enhancement of the upper age limit from 45 years to 65 years, citing violation of Uttar Pradesh State Medical Colleges’ Teachers Services (Second Amendment) Rules, 2005.
  • An advertisement was issued on 24.10.2017 revising the eligibility criteria for educational qualifications.
  • No direct recruitment to the posts of Professors in 12 Government Medical Colleges (Allopathy) for 12 years prior to 2015.
  • An advertisement was issued on 21.12.2015 by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission for direct recruitment to 47 vacant posts of Professors in Allopathic Medical Colleges, which was also challenged in a Writ Petition filed in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
  • The controversy in the Appeals revolves around reservations for direct recruitment to the posts of Professor in Medical Colleges in Uttar Pradesh and the increase in the maximum age limit from 45 to 65 years.
  • The High Court upheld the notification due to no infringement of the Service Rules.
  • Writ Petitions were dismissed by the High Court rejecting submissions on reservations and age limit enhancement.

Also Read: Supreme Court Ruling on Dowry Harassment and Suicide Case


  • The two points under consideration in the Appeals are related to the advertisement’s compliance with the Reservation Act and the age limit enhancement for the post of Professor by direct recruitment.
  • The Writ Petitioners argue that the advertisement for the post of Professor in Government Medical Colleges did not provide reservations for reserved categories, violating the Reservation Act.

Also Read: Case of Technical Equipment Officer Appointment Criteria Dispute


  • The Appellants argue that reservations should be provided based on the total number of posts and vacancies in the entire cadre of Professors.
  • They refer to a decision of the High Court in Heera Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors. regarding Category ‘B’ for direct recruitment in Appendix ‘A’.
  • Rule 6 of the Service Rules makes reservation applicable for direct recruitment to Professor posts.
  • The Respondents justify their action of not providing reservations due to the number of vacancies being less than four in each department.
  • Despite five posts available in certain departments, reservations were not implemented as the proviso treats each department as a single unit.
  • The Service Rules mention that 75% of posts are for promotion and 25% for direct recruitment, with reservation for SC, ST, and OBC categories.
  • Reservation Act is incorporated into Service Rules, specifying percentages for different categories.
  • The Respondents argue that reservations can only be implemented if there are more than four posts available in each department for direct recruitment.
  • Reservations for Category ‘A’ posts must be done on a department-wise basis as per the note in Appendix ‘A’.

Also Read: Supreme Court Judgement on Transfer of Mining Environmental Clearances


  • Section 3 of the Reservation Act outlines the reservation in favor of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes in public services and posts.
  • The percentage of vacancies to be reserved for direct recruitment are as follows: Scheduled Castes – 21%, Scheduled Tribes – 2%, Other Backward Classes – 27%.
  • There is a provision that the reservation for Other Backward Classes shall not apply to those specified in Schedule II.
  • The total reservation for all categories of persons cannot exceed 50% of the total vacancies or cadre strength in any recruitment year.
  • The State Government is required to issue a roster for implementing the reservation, indicating reserve points and cadre strength, to be maintained as a running account until the reservation goals are met.
  • Once the reservation goals are achieved, the operation of the roster and running account will end, and vacancies will be filled from the respective category mentioned in the roster.
  • The advertisement issued for appointment of Professors in departments in Category ‘B’ of Appendix ‘A’ to the Service Rules showed that most departments had less than four posts available.
  • Only General Medicine and General Surgery had two posts each available for filling up.
  • Therefore, only four posts in each of these two departments were available for direct recruitment as per the advertisement dated 21.12.2015.
  • A judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Dr. Juhi Singhal & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. examined a challenge to the mentioned advertisement.
  • In the Navyug Abhiyan Samiti case, the High Court used similar logic and reasoning regarding the increase in upper age limit for Principals in Government Medical Colleges.
  • A full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad discussed the applicability of reservations to Scheduled Castes under the Reservation Act in aided institutions, stating that the Reservation Act cannot be applied if the cadre has less than five posts.
  • The High Court approved the decision to increase the upper age limit for direct recruitment to the post of Professor in Government Medical Colleges from 45 years to 65 years.
  • The increase was made to ensure larger participation in selections due to a lack of eligible and competent individuals coming forward for recruitment for 12 years prior to 2015.
  • The Government’s stance was that the enhancement of the age limit to 65 years did not prejudice the Petitioners.
  • The High Court upheld the increase in the age limit stating that the Regulations set by the MCI would prevail over Service Rules.
  • Rule 9 of the Service Rules initially set the maximum age limit for the post of Professor at 45 years.
  • The relaxation of the age limit was specifically applied to departments where 25% or more posts were vacant.
  • Challenges were raised by Appellants on the increase in age limit, but the Government Order dated 06.02.2015 was not contested by them.
  • The Division Bench affirmed that the MCI Regulations prescribing the maximum age for the post of Principal at 70 years would take precedence over the Service Rules regarding age limits.
  • The Government Order of 06.02.2015 for increasing the age limit from 45 to 65 years was not challenged by the Appellants.
  • The Government’s rationale for enhancing the upper age limit was to address the shortage of qualified teachers in Medical Institutions for Professorial positions.
  • The judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of Dr. Juhi Singhal was relied upon by the Respondents.
  • The case pertains to the same advertisement that is the subject matter of these Appeals.
  • Another judgment, Navyug Abhiyan Samiti v. State of U.P., was also relied upon by the Respondents in this case.
  • The Regulations framed by the MCI regarding the conditions of service of Professors in Medical Colleges prevail over the Service Rules of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
  • The posts of Professors in Government Medical Colleges in Uttar Pradesh were filled by unqualified persons for 15 years prior to 2015, indicating the state of medical education in the state.
  • The State of Uttar Pradesh has increased the maximum age limit for appointments to remedy the situation of unqualified persons holding the position of Professors.
  • Challenges to the advertisement for appointments have hindered the State’s efforts to have qualified doctors as Professors in Government Medical Colleges.
  • The Government Order dated 06.02.2015 has not been challenged by the Appellants, so they cannot raise any grievances regarding it.


  • Respondents are directed to expedite the selection process for the posts of Professors
  • Appointments to be made at the earliest
  • Appeals dismissed


Case Number: C.A. No.-006667-006668 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *