Madras HC Rejects Doctor’s Geriatrics Recruitment Challenge: Family Medicine Diploma Not Shown Equivalent, 12 Marks Below Last Scheduled Caste Selectee.

The petitioner applied under the Scheduled Caste category for Assistant Surgeon (General) with the Geriatrics speciality, pursuant to Medical Services Recruitment Board Notification No. 22/MRB/2025 dated 18 December 2025.

She held an MBBS degree and a Diploma in Family Medicine (DFM), but not a Diploma in Geriatrics.

After the selection was finalised on 11 March 2026, the Board informed her that she did not possess the prescribed speciality qualification under paragraph 6B(iv) of the notification.

She sought to quash that decision and have her DFM treated as equivalent to the required Geriatrics qualification.

The petitioner had scored 51 marks; the last selected SC candidate scored 63.

She also relied on her temporary appointment as an Assistant Surgeon, said to have involved recognition of her qualification as equivalent to DNB Family Medicine.

The Court noted that no equivalence order had been produced and that selected candidates had not been impleaded.

Paragraph 6B of Notification No. 22/MRB/2025 required MBBS-qualified medical officers to possess an additional qualification—MD/MS/DNB/Diploma or the specified higher qualification—in the respective speciality.

The Court held that the recruitment Board and the Court could not themselves determine equivalence between the petitioner’s DFM and the prescribed Geriatrics qualification; the candidate had to produce relevant orders establishing equivalence.

The petitioner lacked a Diploma in Geriatrics, the speciality for which she applied, and produced no order establishing that her DFM was equivalent to that qualification.

Her asserted ability to treat patients of all ages and her earlier temporary appointment did not establish the equivalence required by the notification.

Independently, her score of 51 was below the last selected SC candidate’s 63, and the selected candidates had not been joined to the proceedings; the Court considered these additional obstacles to granting relief.

It also held that, even if her equivalence contention were accepted, her lower score and the absence of the selected candidates as parties prevented the requested relief.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.