In an important judgment clarifying recruitment policies in medical colleges, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court ruled that the Medical Council of India (MCI) guidelines allow up to 30% of faculty positions in certain departments to be filled by non-medical candidates. However, this provision is not mandatory, and institutions are not legally obligated to appoint non-medical candidates.
Case Background
The case involved the appointment of an Assistant Professor in the Department of Clinical Pharmacology at SKIMS, Srinagar. Respondent No.1, a non-medical candidate, applied for the position but was not selected, as the post was given to a more meritorious medical candidate (Respondent No.4).
Read also: Prima Facie Evidence Linking Accused to Offending Vehicle is Essential for Framing Charges Under Section 304A IPC: J&K High Court
Respondent No.1 challenged the appointment, arguing that SKIMS was obligated to ensure that 30% of faculty positions in Clinical Pharmacology were reserved for non-medical candidates, in accordance with MCI norms. The Single Judge of the High Court initially ruled in favor of Respondent No.1 and directed SKIMS to reconsider his case for retrospective appointment. This prompted the appellant to file intra-court appeals challenging the decision.
Court’s Observation and Verdict
A division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta examined the regulations and clarified that the 30% provision was discretionary rather than compulsory.
"The rule cited by Respondent No.1 is not mandatory. Even if a medical college chooses to appoint only medical faculty in departments such as Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, and Pharmacology, it cannot be deemed a violation of MCI guidelines."
The court also pointed out that the recruitment advertisement issued in 2016 was open to both medical and non-medical candidates. However, as per the merit list, Respondent No.1 had the lowest score, while Respondent No.4 had the highest marks and was rightfully selected.
"In the presence of more qualified medical candidates, the unfilled post could not have been given to Respondent No.1 solely based on his non-medical qualification."
The court emphasized that the Single Bench had misinterpreted the guidelines by assuming that 30% of faculty positions must be mandatorily filled with non-medical candidates.
The court further stated that medical institutions have the discretion to appoint non-medical faculty in select departments like Pharmacology but must ensure that non-medical appointments do not exceed the 30% limit.
Read also: J&K And Ladakh High Court Implements Supreme Court's SOPs on Government Officials’ Court Appearances
"While institutions can hire non-medical faculty in certain departments, they are not bound to do so. However, if they choose to hire non-medical faculty, their number must not exceed 30% of the total posts in the department."
APPEARANCE:
Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Junaid Malik, Advocate for Petitioners
M.Y.Bhat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.A.Bhat, Advocate for R-1
Abdul Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG with Ms. Rahella Khan, Advocate FOR Respondents
Case-title: Dr. Majid Farooq vs Dr. Majid Farooq, 2025
