WP/41032/2026 of DR.YUASHREE Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU on 27 October 2026

Order

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Loganathan, learned Standing Counsel Respondent No.2. and Mr.R.Nandakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1,3 &4.

2. Petitioner herein participated in the recruitment process in response to the notification issued by the 2nd respondent vide No.22/MRB/2025 dated 18.12.2025 for the post of Assistant Surgeon(General) with Specialty qualification Geriatrics under SC category. However, the petitioner could not make it to the selection list. Pursuant to the above, the selection was finalised by the respondent Board on 11.03.2026. It was at that stage, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent by submitting the representation dated 14.05.2026 requesting for information for not selecting the petitioner for the post in question. In response thereto, the 2nd respondent issued the proceedings in LDs.No.1798/MRB/E2/2026 dated 15.06.2026 informing the petitioner that the petitioner failed to satisfy the qualifications prescribed under the notification for the post of Assistant Surgeon(General) with Speciality Geriatrics in term of paragraph 6 B(iv) of the notification. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 15.06.2026, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is having equivalent qualification to the qualification that was prescribed under Paragraph 6 B of the notification in question, but the candidature of the petitioner was erroneously rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having MBBS qualification which is the basic qualification prescribed for the post in question and in addition to that the

petitioner is also possessing the additional qualification viz., Diploma in Family Medicine. He further submits that the persons in possession of a Diploma in Family Medicine, is eligible to treat persons in all ages and whereas Diploma in Geriatrics is specialised to treat only elderly persons. Thus, he contends that the petitioner, who is possessing additional qualification of Diploma in Family Medicine, is eligible to treat even the elderly people and therefore that should be treated as an equivalent to the qualification that was prescribed under the notification in question. He further submits that the petitioner was temporarily appointed as Assistant Surgeon under category II of Call I of Tamil Nadu Medical Service in a sanctioned post by treating the qualification possessed by the petitioner as equivalent to DNB Family Medicine. Thus, he contends that 3rd respondent have already treated the qualification possessed by the petitioner as equivalent to DNB (Family Medicine) and therefore it is not open for the 2nd respondent herein to disqualify the petitioner on the said ground.

4. On the other hand, Mr.M.Loganathan learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, on instruction, submits that the selection, pursuant to the impugned notification, was finalised as early as on 11.03.2026 and the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly without even challenging the said selection. He also further submits that the petitioner has secured 51 marks in the selection process and whereas the last candidate

selected under SC category, to which the petitioner belongs to, has secured 63 marks. Thus, he submits that even if the qualification possessed by the petitioner is treated as equivalent to the qualification prescribed under paragraph 6 B of the qualification in question, the petitioner will not come up for selection and therefore, there is no purpose in going into the issues raised in the present writ petition.

5. He also further submits that Diploma in Family Medicine (DFM) is not one of the additional qualification prescribed under the notification in question and the Diploma in the respective speciality is the qualification that was prescribed and therefore in the absence of any such Diploma possessed by the petitioner in the speciality of Geriatrics, treating the petitioner as equal to these candidates possessing the requisite qualification does not arise.

6. This Court has carefully considered the submission made on either side and also perused the materials on record.

7. In terms of paragraph 6 B of the notification in question, the qualification that are prescribed for the post in question are as under: “MBBS qualified Medical Officers possessing additional qualification to the extent of MD/MS/DNB/Diploma/Diploma in DNB/ Superspeciality (MCH) in the respective specialities.”

8. From the perusal of the above, it is amply clear that the additional qualification that is required to be possessed by any candidate is Diploma in the respective speciality. Admittedly, in the instant case the petitioner is not possessing the Diploma in Geriatrics, the speciality to which the petitioner has applied. Whether the Diploma in Family Medicine can be treated as equivalent to the Diploma in Geriatrics or not, is not for this Court to examine nor is it open for the respondent Board to examine the said aspect. It is for the petitioner to produce the relevant orders on equivalence of the qualification possessed by the petitioner to that of the qualification prescribed under the notification. No such orders on equivalence is placed before this Court or before the respondent Board. In the absence of the same, the question of petitioner being treated as the person possessing the qualifications notified under the notification or the qualification equivalent does not arise.

9. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent Board. Be that as it may, as submitted by the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Board, the petitioner has secured only 51 marks as against the last selected candidate who secured 63 marks under SC category. In view of the same, even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, the case of petitioner cannot be considered for further selection process. On this ground also, the

writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Added to that, the learned counsel submitted that the entire selection process was over by 11.03.2026 and none of the selected candidates have been impleaded as party respondents to the writ petition. In the absence of impleading the selected candidates, the question of granting any relief to the petitioner, as sought for in the present writ petition, does not arise.

10. In the light of the above, this Court does not see any reason to entertain the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 27-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No vsn

To

1. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-09.

2. Medical Services Recruitment Board Rep by its Member Secretary, 7th Floor, DMS Building, No.359, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-06.

3. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, DMS Complex,Teynampet, Chennai-06.

4. Tamil Nadu Medical Council Rep by its Registrar, No.959 and 960, Poonamallee High Road, Purasaiwakkam, Chennai-084.

5. The National Medical Commission Rep by its Joint Secretary Pocket -14, Sector- 8,Dwarka, New Delhi-110077

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR J. vsn WP No. 41032 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 46029 OF 2026 27-10-2026