Karnataka High Court upholds amendment enhancing age limit of senior medical officers

The High Court has upheld the amendment to the rules for the recruitment of senior medical officers, increasing the age limit from 21 years to 26 years.

The state government has defended the amendment stating that during Covid-19, doctors on contract basis have done a commendable job, and hence, it is necessary to encourage and utilise the services of experienced doctors.

A batch of petitions, filed by graduate doctors, both MBBS and BDS, challenged the amendment to Rule 4 of the Karnataka Directorate Health and Family Welfare Services (Recruitment of Senior Medical Officer/Specialists, General Duty Medical Officers and Dental Health Officers) (Special) (Amendment) Rules, 2020.

The petitioners were appointed as General Duty Medical Officers on contract basis and were aspiring to apply for recruitment to the post of General Duty Medical Officers.

A division bench, comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur, said that the determination of cut-off dates or fixing the age limit lies in the realm of policy. The stand of the state government was that the purpose of the amendment, which came into effect in July 2020, is to encourage the services of experienced doctors during the Covid-19 pandemic and also to extend their valuable services in the rural areas.

“It is no doubt true that experience has not been fixed as the criteria for the appointment to the post of General Duty Medical Officers. However, it does not mean that the state has no power to file the minimum age criteria. The enhancement of the age from 21 years to 26 years is based on the intelligible differentia of experience and rural service with the object to provide experienced medical service to the needy public,“ the bench said.

The petitioners had first approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal contending that there is no rationale behind the enhancement of the age and claimed that artificial restriction has been created.

They also said that it deprives the meritorious candidates and amendment has been done with the sole intention of extending the benefit to those candidates who would have taken a long time to complete the MBBS degree.

The tribunal had held that there was no arbitrariness in the amendment.