Seniority-Based Rotational Appointment to HOD Post Cannot Be Denied Solely on Past Disciplinary Record or Medical Ailment

The petitioner, a senior-most Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology at Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior, with 35 years of service, challenged the rejection of his claim for appointment as Head of Department (HOD).

In 2020, the petitioner was diagnosed with Stage-IV Prostate Cancer but continued to discharge his duties efficiently, including a prior stint as HOD from 2020 to 2023.

The Department of Medical Education issued a circular dated 05.08.2023, mandating HOD appointments based on seniority-cum-rotation for a two-year tenure.

Despite his seniority, the respondents rejected his representation via an order dated 29.04.2026, citing his medical condition and a past disciplinary penalty from 2015-2016.

The respondents argued that HOD assignment is an administrative arrangement and that the petitioner’s health might hinder his performance.

Department of Medical Education Circular dated 05.08.2023, which prescribes that HODs in Government Medical Colleges shall be appointed based on seniority with a rotational tenure of two years.

Principle of Administrative Non-Arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16, emphasizing that while administrative discretion exists, it must be exercised on rational grounds and not in a discriminatory manner when a uniform policy is in place.

The Court observed that the petitioner is admittedly the senior-most Professor and had successfully discharged HOD duties post-cancer diagnosis between 2020 and 2023 without any complaints or show-cause notices.

It held that a medical condition cannot be a bar if the individual is deemed fit to continue as a Professor and has already proven administrative capability post-diagnosis.

Regarding the 2016 disciplinary penalty (withholding one increment), the Court reasoned that since the respondents had previously entrusted the petitioner with the HOD charge in 2020 despite knowing of this penalty, they were estopped from using the same "spent" record as a disqualification now.

The Court found that the circular was being applied to all other departments, and the respondents failed to provide a rational basis for singling out the petitioner, thereby rendering the exclusion discriminatory.

Neither the medical condition nor the past penalty justified bypassing the petitioner; the respondents were directed to appoint the petitioner as HOD, Ophthalmology, at Gajra Raja Medical College with immediate effect within seven days.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.