Statutory paramedical registration is mandatory even when omitted from the recruitment advertisement.

Respondent No. 3 issued Advertisement Notification No. 01 of 2025 dated 29 January 2025 for contractual engagement to various posts in Government Medical College, Baramulla, including eight posts of Technical Assistant/Technician (Laboratory Technician). The prescribed qualification was 10+2 with Science, or a higher qualification, along with a Diploma in Medical Lab Technology or Medical Assistant Course; selection was to be based on merit in a written test.

The petitioners and private respondents participated in the written examination. The petitioners secured 78.25 and 78 marks and stood at merit positions 2 and 3, whereas private respondents Nos. 4 and 5 secured lower marks and stood at positions 5 and 7 respectively.

Although the petitioners were called for document verification and their documents were scrutinized, their names were excluded from the final selection list dated 10 May 2025. Private respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were selected, while private respondents Nos. 6 and 7 were placed on the waiting list.

The petitioners challenged the selection on the ground that they possessed the advertised qualifications and had secured higher marks, and that possession of a registration certificate from the J&K Paramedical Council had not been prescribed in the advertisement. The respondents maintained that valid registration was a mandatory statutory requirement under the J&K Paramedical Council Act, 2014, and that the petitioners failed to produce such certificates at the time of document verification.

1. Whether the respondents could insist upon a valid registration certificate from the J&K Paramedical Council despite the advertisement not expressly prescribing registration as an eligibility condition?

2. Whether the petitioners, having secured higher marks and possessing the advertised educational qualifications, were entitled to selection in the absence of valid registration certificates at the time of document verification?

3. Whether the connected contempt proceedings were maintainable when the engagement orders in favour of the private respondents had been implemented before the interim order?

The Court applied Sections 38, 44(1) and 44(2) of the J&K Paramedical Council Act, 2014. Section 38 requires registration of a paramedical practitioner, while Section 44(1) prohibits practice as a paramedical practitioner without such registration; contravention is punishable under Section 44(2).

The Court further relied on Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 55, which holds that statutory rules prevail over an inconsistent or incomplete advertisement, and on Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 9 SCC 507, which establishes that an error or omission in an advertisement cannot create a right in favour of a candidate who is ineligible under the governing statutory rules.

Accordingly, the statutory requirement of valid paramedical registration had to be read into the eligibility conditions even though it was not expressly stated in the advertisement.

The Court accepted that the petitioners possessed the educational qualifications specified in the advertisement and had obtained higher marks than the selected private respondents.

However, educational merit alone could not confer a right to appointment where the governing statute prohibited the petitioners from practising as paramedical practitioners without registration. Since Sections 38 and 44 made valid registration a mandatory statutory prerequisite, the omission of that requirement from the advertisement could not override the statute.

The petitioners admittedly failed to produce valid registration certificates during document verification on 6 and 7 May 2025. Their subsequent representation stating that their applications were under process was made only on 13 May 2025, after issuance of the final selection list, and could not cure their ineligibility as on the relevant date.

The record also showed consistent application of the requirement, as other candidates, including the candidate at merit position 1, were likewise excluded for failure to produce registration certificates, whereas the selected private respondents possessed valid certificates.

The contempt proceedings also failed because the respondents had implemented the engagement orders before the interim order was passed.

The petitioners’ higher written-test merit and possession of the advertised educational qualifications did not entitle them to selection because they lacked the mandatory registration certificates at the time of document verification.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, the interim order dated 20 May 2025 was vacated, and the connected contempt petition was closed and disposed of.