A doctor with a physical impairment who was denied the position of Senior Resident because he was over 45 years old was recently given redress by the Rajasthan High Court. The doctor argued that persons with disabilities (PwD) should be allowed to be older by five years, but the National Medical Commission (NMC) and other authorities disagreed. Under the direction of Justice Sameer Jain, the HC bench maintained the doctor’s right to age relaxation and ordered the NMC and the State to reimburse the doctor for the suffering and delay they had to endure.
The dispute concerned the interpretation and application of multiple legal requirements, specifically the corresponding Rules of 2018 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016. The Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions rules 1998 and other rules under the NMC Act of 2019 should be applied in accordance with these requirements, the court stressed. The Court’s reasoning sought to prevent contradictory regulations from making ineffective the benefits intended for individuals with benchmark disabilities.
The petitioner, a doctor with a 40% benchmark disability, was employed as a Senior Demonstrator with the Medical Education Department and had completed his PG in MD Pediatrics. He applied for the position of Senior Resident on 01.09.2023 but was excluded from the merit list due to being over the age limit. He contended that, as per Rule 6A of the Rules of 2018, he was entitled to an age relaxation of 5 years. His counsel highlighted that the Instruction Booklet for allotment provided a 4% horizontal reservation for candidates with specified disabilities, in line with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 and the corresponding Rules of 2018. They also noted that similar age relaxations were granted by other medical institutions such as AIIMS Jodhpur and several other medical colleges across India.
The NMC’s legal representative contended that the decision was lawful, highlighting that the 45-year age limit was established to uphold the highest standards of medical education. Citing Article 254 of the Indian Constitution, they contended that, in this particular situation, the NMC Act of 2019 ought to take precedence over the Rules of 2018. According to the NMC, keeping senior residents in government hospitals at a high standard and maximising their efficiency depends on adhering to the maximum age limit.
The relevant advertisement for the Senior Resident position contained a reserve clause for candidates who were persons with disabilities, as the court observed. Consequently, the age relaxation allowed by Rule 6A of the Rules of 2018 shall be taken into account throughout the same recruitment process. In direct recruitment considerations, this rule expressly allows candidates with baseline disabilities to have a 5-year age relaxation. The Department of Social Justice and Empowerment’s notification from 14.10.2021—which added Rule 6A to the Rules of 2018 and strengthened PwD candidates’ entitlement to age relaxation—was also cited by the court.
The Court emphasized that it would be unfair to apply the Rules of 2018 in a selective manner, allowing reservation but rejecting age relaxation. It mentioned that similar age relaxations have already been introduced by AIIMS Jodhpur and other institutes. The age relaxation provisions of Rule 6A should therefore be viewed in connection with the regulations under the NMC Act of 2019, which established the upper age restriction. This view seeks to give people with impairments equal opportunities and is consistent with the social justice principle.
In order to guarantee that the intended benefits for people with disabilities are realized, the Court’s decision underscored the significance of harmonizing disparate legal requirements. It acknowledged the practical and societal obstacles that frequently keep people with disabilities from fully engaging in the job. The Court sought to lower these obstacles and encourage greater inclusion and engagement of people with disabilities in public recruiting by allowing age relaxation.
The ruling by the Rajasthan High Court emphasizes how important it is to interpret the law in a way that encourages social justice and inclusivity. The Court upheld the rights of people with disabilities to fair and equitable treatment in work prospects by ordering the authorities to permit the petitioner to assume the role of Senior Resident and levying a fine for the unnecessary hardship incurred. The decision establishes a standard for the application of advantageous laws in a way that actually promotes the inclusion and empowerment of people with disabilities in society.
SOURCE:
MEDICAL DIALOGUES
