Punjab HC Upholds Contract RMOs’ Entry Into Regular Cadre Without Fresh Ad, Citing Earlier Merit-Based Selection

Rural Medical Officers (RMOs) were engaged on contract after advertisements and a selection process based on prescribed eligibility, MBBS marks and counselling.

In 2011, the State decided to create a regular RMO cadre and induct the existing RMOs; the Punjab Panchayati Raj Rural Medical (Group-A) Service Rules, 2011 subsequently provided the statutory framework for that service.

The petitioners, who had not participated in the earlier contractual selections, sought to quash the induction of the contractual RMOs into the regular cadre and sought fresh advertisement of the posts.

They argued, among other things, that a Punjab-domicile condition had prevented them from applying.

The Court reserved judgment on 20 August 2026 and dismissed the petition.

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution protect equality and equal opportunity in public employment; Article 16(3) vests Parliament with the power to prescribe residence requirements for public employment.

Under Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, contractual or temporary service, by itself, does not entitle an employee to regularisation; the constitutional concern is avoiding appointment to public posts without a proper selection process.

The Court also applied the Full Bench ruling in Abhishek Rishi v. State of Punjab, 2013(3) RCR (Civil) 239, which held that a State Government cannot prescribe domicile or residence in the State as a qualification for public employment.

The Court considered these principles alongside the 2011 Service Rules and the Government’s decision to constitute the regular RMO cadre.

The Court found that the private respondents had entered RMO service through an advertised, merit-based process and that there was no evidence of fraud, favouritism or appointments wholly outside the selection process.

The Government had created a regular cadre for the same service and, according to the Court, had not regularised the respondents merely because of their length of service; it also prescribed prospective appointment dates and excluded specified benefits for prior contractual service.

In those circumstances, the Court held that the absence of a second advertisement did not, by itself, invalidate their induction, and that Uma Devi did not require the earlier selection to be disregarded.

Although the domicile condition was legally objectionable under Abhishek Rishi, the petitioners had not challenged it when the contractual recruitment occurred.

The Court held that, given its conclusion that the 2011 induction did not require a fresh recruitment process, the domicile argument did not furnish an independent basis to unsettle the respondents’ appointments.

It rejected the contention that a fresh advertisement was indispensable and dismissed the writ petition; pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.