[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Dr. G.Arulvel, vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 April, 2026
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
____________
W.P. No.13354/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on Pronounced on
02.04.2026 08.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. NO. 13354 OF 2026
AND
W.M.P. NO.14608 OF 2026
Dr. G.Arulvel .. Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Govt.
Health & Family Welfare Department
Secretariat, Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Medical Education & Research
Kilpauk, Chennai 60 010.
3. The Addl. Director of Medical Education &
Research/Secretary, Selection Committee
O/o The Director of Medical Education
& Research, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the
petitioner to participate in the counselling for admission to Super Specialty
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13354/2026
Course in Tamil Nadu Medical Service as in-service candidate for the Session
2025-2026 by accepting the application for Round-II counselling notified by the
3rd respondent by Circular dated 30.03.2026 by reckoning the services of the
petitioner in the sanctioned post on temporary appointment under Section 17 (1)
of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 as eligible
qualification as per Clause 8 (a) of Super Specialty Course Prospectus for 2025-
2026 in consideration of representation submitted by the petitioner dated
30.03.2026 within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
For Petitioner : Mr. G.Sankaran, SC, for
Mr. S.Nedunchezhiyan
For Respondents : Ms. M.Sneha, Spl. Counsel
ORDER
Direction is sought for from this Court in the nature of Mandamus through
this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to
participate in the counselling for admission to Super Specialty Course in Tamil
Nadu Medical Service as in-service candidate for the Session 2025-2026 by
accepting the application of the petitioner and reckoning the service of the
petitioner rendered in a sanctioned post on temporary appointment u/s 17 (1) of
the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 since the
year 2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
2. It is the case of the petitioner that upon completion of bachelor’s
degree in the year 2016 and subsequently Master’s degree in the year 2020,
based on the bond executed by the petitioner as non-service PG. Candidate, the
petitioner was appointed in Tamil Nadu Medical Service on temporary basis in a
sanctioned post u/s 17 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of
Service) Act, 2016 (for short ‘the Act’) vide order of appointment dated
13.08.2021 in the time scale of pay for the post of Assistant Surgeon and joined in
the post of Assistant Surgeon in ESI Hospital, Ayanavaram on 6.9.2021 and that
service register has been opened and the petitioner has also been brought under
the Contributory Pension Scheme.
3. It is further averment of the petitioner that for the purpose of granting
regularisation of Medical Officers, who have been appointed on temporary basis,
G.O. (D) No.1016, Health and Family Welfare Department dated has been issued,
by which the persons who were temporarily appointed as Medical Officers, upon
qualifying themselves in the Special Qualifying examination conducted by the
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, would have their services regularised and,
accordingly, similar Government orders were passed in the year 2008, 2009, 2012
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
and 2016 for the conduct of Special Qualifying Examinations (for short ‘SQE’) for
regularising the services of temporarily appointed Medical Officers. Even in the
year 2020, Government Order in G.O. Ms. No.571 dated 24.12.2020 was issued
and orders of regularisation have been passed regularising the services of such of
the Assistant Surgeons from the date of their initial appointment in the Tamil
Nadu Medical Service.
4. It is the further averment of the petitioner that since the petitioner has
completed the PG Medical course in the year 2020 and appointed on 6.9.2021
u/s 17 (1) of the Act, the petitioner is entitled for regularisation of service by
clearing the SQE in accordance with the Government Orders.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that as per proceedings dated
31.01.2022, for the first time, the Government has taken a policy decision that
the appointment of Non-Service PG Assistant Surgeons towards bond service
shall be made by way of Agreement u/s 19 (1) of the Act instead of u/s 17 (1) of
the Act and, therefore, persons, who have cleared PG Medical course from the
year 2022 were appointed on agreement basis u/s 19 (1) of the Act by making it
clear that they would not be regarded as regular members of the service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
6. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the representation of the
Medical Officers, who were appointed on temporary basis, like the petitioner, in
the sanctioned post u/s 17 (1) of the Act, G.O. Ms. No.436 dated 8.10.2025 had
come to be issued to conduct SQE to regularise the service of such of the persons
in the post of Assistant Surgeons, but with a caveat that such Medical Officers are
required to give an undertaking that they will not demand regularisation of
service from the date of their temporary appointment under bond obligation. It
is the further case of the petitioner that due to the pressure exerted, persons,
including the petitioner were forced to give the said undertaking on compulsion.
7. It is the further averment of the petitioner that SQE was conducted on
31.1.2026 and the petitioner had participated in the examination and had come
out successful and an order of appointment was issued dated 6.3.2026 in the
very same post in which the petitioner was working since the year 2021. Such an
order runs contrary to G.O. Ms. No.436, which directs regularisation of service on
clearing SQE.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
8. It is the further averment of the petitioner that he submitted an
objection to the respondents against the said appointment order considering the
petitioner as a new entrant instead of regularising the service of the petitioner in
the post of Assistant Surgeon since September, 2021. In this backdrop the
present writ petition has been filed to consider the petitioner for appointment to
Super Specialty course through NEET-SS-2025 under service quota by considering
the period of service rendered in the post of Assistant Surgeon from the date of
initial appointment to satisfy the condition of prospectus for admission to Super
Specialty course prescribing two years of continuous service as on 31.03.2026.
9. It is the further averment of the petitioner that in the written NEET-
SS-2025, the petitioner had secured 298 marks and assigned with All India Rank
of 3803 and on the basis of the marks obtained by the petitioner, the petitioner is
well within the zone of consideration for admission into PG Medical Super
Specialty course M.Ch in Surgical Gastroenterology under service candidate
quota. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the first round of
counselling was conducted on 16.3.2026 in which the petitioner was not
permitted to submit his application on the ground that the petitioner has not
completed two years of service and that the service into rendered by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
petitioner from the date of appointment has not been taken consideration.
Inspite of the petitioner submitting his application, however, the petitioner was
not permitted to complete the same due to non-consideration of the service of
the petitioner rendered prior to 31.1.2026.
10. It is the further averment of the petitioner that inspite of vacancies
available in M.Ch. Surgical Gastroenterology, which could not be filled up due to
want of eligible in-service doctors in Government service, as the petitioner’s
candidature has not been considered, the petitioner submitted an application for
consideration of his name for admission into Super Specialty course, which has
not been considered till date.
11. It is the further averment of the petitioner that Round-2 counselling is
scheduled on 30.03.2026 for which registration is fixed between 30.03.2026 to
02.04.2026 and Choice Filling/Locking is fixed on 3.4.2026 and 4.4.2026 and the
result is to be published on 6.4.2026 and that fresh candidates, who have not
registered in Round – 1 counselling are permitted to submit application, however,
when the petitioner submitted his application, the same was not accepted which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary as persons, who had not registered in Round – 1 were
permitted to submit online application.
12. It is the specific case of the petitioner that his actual services rendered
in the post of Assistant Surgeon in a sanctioned post in regular time scale of pay
ought to have been taken into consideration as eligible service for the purpose of
admission to Super Specialty course under service quota applicable for in-service
doctors. In this regard, it is the averment of the petitioner that even as per the
ratio laid down by the Apex Court, the service qualification is different and
seniority is different and the services rendered prior to appointment in the new
unit to be considered for the purpose of arriving at the qualifying service of the
petitioner.
13. It is the further averment of the petitioner that clause 8 (a) of the
prospectus only mandates that persons appointed in Tamil Medical Service
should have completed two years of continuous service as on 31.03.2026 and it
does not exclude the services rendered prior to the date of SQE in the sanctioned
post and if the same is looked into properly, the petitioner has completed two
years of continuous service as on 31.03.2026.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
14. It is the further averment of the petitioner that similarly placed
persons, who cleared SQE in 2022, who were appointed in bond service in 2019
and cleared SQE in 2022 were permitted to participate in State Counselling for
Super Specialty Course in December, 2022 and they have been allowed to join
Super Specialty Course in the academic year 2022-2023 and the present stand
taken by the Government is a clear discrimination against similarly placed
persons, moreso, when they have been appointed in sanctioned substantive post
in a time scale of pay. Inspite of the representation submitted by the petitioner,
as no orders have been passed on the same, having no other alternative and
efficacious remedy, the present petition has been filed before this Court.
15. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
when the petitioner has been appointed u/s 17 (1) of the Act in a
substantive/sanctioned post in the time scale of pay, the said period of service
rendered by such of those persons should be taken into consideration and the
service regularised from such date as any appointment made in a sanctioned post
in the time scale of pay has to be construed as qualifying service for all purposes.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
16. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that even
otherwise, the Government Order in and by which the bond period would be
treated as Agreement u/s 19 (1) of the Act in respect of persons, who were
appointed in the year 2022, subsequent to the Government Order cannot be
pressed against the petitioner to seek any undertaking as has been compulsorily
sought from the petitioner and other similarly placed persons, when the
petitioner was appointed in a substantive post u/s 17 (1) of the Act and,
therefore, any such undertaking cannot form the basis to deny the legitimate
claim for regularisation sought for by the petitioner.
17. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that even
otherwise, clause 8 (a) of the prospectus does not exclude the services rendered
prior to the date of SQE in a sanctioned post for consideration of the service for
the purpose of qualifying service for applying for the Super Specialty course. That
being the case, the petitioner having completed two years service in a sanctioned
post in a time scale of pay is entitled for regularisation of service from the date
on which the petitioner was appointed in the service. Therefore, he prays that
the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to participate in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
counselling as otherwise it would cause grave prejudice and injury to the
petitioner and prays for allowing the present petition.
18. Per contra, learned special counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that while the appointment of the petitioner temporarily as Assistant
Surgeon u/s 17 (1) of the Act is not disputed, however, the said selection and
appointment was neither through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission nor
through Competitive Written Examination/Special Qualifying Examination by the
Medical Recruitment Board. The selection and appointment of the petitioner
was not through a process of selection and, therefore, the petitioner cannot seek
regularisation of the said service for the purpose of his eligibility under clause 2
of the prospectus.
19. It is the further submission of the learned special counsel that only
such of those persons, who have been selected and appointed either by TNPSC or
by the Medical Services Recruitment Board through Competitive Written
Examination/Special Qualifying Examination and had completed two years of
continuous service as on 31.03.2026 alone are eligible to be treated as in-service
candidates for getting the benefit of admission under the in-service category.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
Though the petitioner was appointed in the year 2021, but it was neither through
TNPSC nor through MRB by following a selection process and, therefore, the said
selection and appointment cannot seek for regularisation of the said services,
inspite of the fact that such appointment is in a cadre post and in a time scale of
pay.
20. It is therefore the submission of the learned special counsel that the
respondents, rightly appreciating the aforesaid fact, has not granted the benefit
of regularisation to the petitioners and persons similarly placed and the
prospectus having clearly spelt out the persons, who would be eligible for
applying under the in-service quota under clause 2 (b) and clause 8 (a) of the
prospectus, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit out of the said appointment
and, therefore, there is no merit in the representation submitted by the
petitioner. Accordingly, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
21. In support of the aforesaid submission learned counsel placed reliance
on the decision of this Court in Dr.Saravanan & Ors. – Vs – The Health Secretary
& Ors. (W.P. Nos.5105 of 2021, etc. Batch – Dated 26.04.2022) and the interim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
order passed in the appeal in W.A. Nos.2608/2022, etc. Batch – Dated
17.11.2023 against the said order.
22. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
23. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. The course
completion of the petitioner and the appointment of the petitioner on 6.9.2021 is
also not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed prior
to the proceedings dated 31.01.2022 in and by which non-service PG Assistant
Service towards bond service was to be made by agreement as per section 19 (1)
of the Act instead of u/s 17 (1) of the Act. The application, as is the time tested
ratio, would have prospective application and not retrospective application.
24. However, what is to be noted here is the fact that the petitioner is not
under bond at the relevant point of time, viz., in the year 2026. However, his
appointment is on the basis of Section 17 (1) of the Act. Therefore, his
appointment under Section 17 (1) was made for the benefit of the public in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
form of providing timely medical treatment at the hands of a trained medical
practitioner. Therefore, the authority is endowed with the power of such
appointment in exigent situations without following resorting to written
competitive examination/SQE. Therefore, from the above, it would be evident
that the Government had made the appointments in the interest of the public in
a substantive cadre post, though in a temporary capacity, but that too on a time
scale of pay.
25. True it is that vide G.O. Ms. No.436, for the purpose of conduct of SQE,
the Government had sought for an undertaking from the persons, numbering
117, who have been appointed as temporary Assistant Surgeons, not to seek for
regularisation of the period of service rendered by them under the temporary
establishment. The petitioner, though has given the said undertaking, has
explained that the same was given under coercion and also on the fear that his
future prospects may be curtailed, if he refuses to give the said undertaking as he
may not be permitted to write the SQE.
26. In this regard, a perusal of G.O. Ms. No.436, which forms the basis for
conduct of SQE for persons like the petitioner, reveals that in para-2 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
Government Order the proposal of the Director of Public Health and Preventive
Medicine was examined by the Government and it was decided to conduct SQE
to the 117 Medical Officers appointed temporarily in Tamil Nadu Medical Service
under the then Rule 10 (a)(i) of General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and
Subordinate Services/Section 17 (1) of the Act for those persons who have
completed their bond obligation and are continuing in the service on the date of
issue of the said Government so as to regularly appoint them in the service.
27. The above portion of the Government Order clearly shows that the
petitioner and persons similarly placed like the petitioner numbering 117 were
appointed temporarily in Tamil Nadu Medical Service under the then Rule 10 (a)
(i) of General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services/Section 17 (1)
of the Act and, therefore, the said persons having been appointed in a
substantive post borne out of a cadre in the time scale of pay, necessarily the
period of service rendered by them would have to be counted for the purpose of
arriving at the qualifying service.
28. In this regard, the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors. – Vs – R.Kaliyamoorthy (2019 (6) CTC 705), though
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
had occasion to deal with an issue relating to pension, in which the Tamil Nadu
Pension Rules, vis-a-vis the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules were
deliberated, however, the Full Bench had occasion to discuss the various types of
appointments with particular reference to 10 (a)(i) appointments and in that
context the Full Bench held as under :-
31. On behalf of the writ petitioners, it was contended that
the writ petitioners have been temporarily employed with
nomenclature such as daily wage employees, on consolidated
pay or on honorarium basis etc. and as per Rule 11 (1) the
service rendered by them in such temporary employment has
to be counted along with the regular service in a cadre post.
We wish to observe that the word temporary or officiating
service employed in Rule 11 (1) is referable to 'temporary
appointment' contemplated under Rule 10 (a) (i) of Tamil Nadu
State and Subordinate Services Rules. On a reading of Rule 10
(a) (i), the wordings employed thereof are explicit and clear. A
temporary appointment made to a government service is the
one which is made in a post borne on the cadre of a service,
class or category, meaning thereby such temporary
appointment is made in an existing vacancy or notified
vacancy. Rule 10 (a) (i) further makes the position clear that
such appointment is permissible to be made by the appointing
authority in case of emergency to fill the vacancy, in public
interest. For such appointment, the appointing authority has
to form an opinion that the procedural process for
appointment to the cadre post will take some time and that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
such delay would prejudice the public interest. In such
circumstances, Rule 10 (a) (i) can be invoked for appointing a
candidate on temporary appointment in a sanctioned post.
The service of such person, though appointed on temporary
appointment can later be regularised by following the due
procedure. The significance for invoking Rule 10 (a) (i), apart
from public interest, is the existence of sanctioned post or
vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a service, class or
category. Thus, Rule 10 (a) (i) cannot be invoked in the
absence of an existing vacancy in a cadre post. Therefore, we
are of the view that the temporary appointment mentioned in
Rule 11 of the Pension Rules, in the realm of Service Law
Jurisprudence, is referable only to Rule 10 (a) (i) of the Tamil
Nadu State and Subordinate Services. The writ petitioners
were however appointed on daily wage basis on payment of
honorarium or consolidated pay and did not come within the
fold of Rule 10 (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate
Services Rules. Only the appointments made under the
provisions of Rule 10 (a) (i) of the aforesaid Rules alone can be
considered as temporary appointment. Therefore, the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioners relying upon
Rule 3 (o) has to be rejected. Admittedly the Writ Petitioners
were not appointed invoking Rule 10(a)(i). “
(Emphasis Supplied)
29. A careful reading of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision clearly
reveals that a temporary appointment made to a government service is the one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
which is made in a post borne on the cadre of a service, class or category,
meaning thereby such temporary appointment is made in an existing vacancy or
notified vacancy and it further makes the position clear that such appointment is
permissible to be made by the appointing authority in case of emergency to fill
the vacancy, in public interest. For such appointment, the appointing authority
has to form an opinion that the procedural process for appointment to the
cadre post will take some time and that such delay would prejudice the public
interest. In such circumstances, Rule 10 (a) (i) can be invoked for appointing a
candidate on temporary appointment in a sanctioned post. The service of such
person, though appointed on temporary appointment can later be regularised by
following the due procedure. The significance for invoking Rule 10 (a) (i), apart
from public interest, is the existence of sanctioned post or vacancy in a post borne
on the cadre of a service, class or category. Thus, Rule 10 (a) (i) cannot be invoked
in the absence of an existing vacancy in a cadre post.
30. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner and the
other similarly placed persons, numbering 117 persons, were appointed on
temporary basis in a post borne out of a cadre as Assistant Surgeon by invoking
Section 10 (a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
Section 17 (1) of the Act and the authority upon forming an opinion that the
procedural process for appointment to the cadre post through TNPSC and MRB
will take some time and that such delay would prejudice the public interest, had,
in exercise of the power vested under it had appointed the petitioner and other
similarly placed persons as Assistant Surgeons in temporary vacancies, which are
borne out of the cadre and, therefore, the appointment of such of the persons
ought to be regularised by following the due procedure.
31. The Government, as the model employer, when utilises the services of
the medical professionals like the petitioner, is bound to be a model employer
and when the Government, in its discretion and power, had appointed the
petitioner and the other similarly placed persons as Assistant Surgeons
temporarily in the post borne out of a cadre, necessarily, such appointments
have to be regularised in the manner known to law. The respondents cannot
now come before this Court and plead that the petitioner and other similarly
placed persons have not been appointed through a written competitive
examination/SQE conducted either by TNPSC or MRB and, therefore, their service
cannot be regularised, merely because the prospectus provides for such a
condition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
32. Clauses 2 (b) relating to eligibility criteria and clause 7 and 8 relating to
in-service candidates are relevant for the purpose of considering the present case
and for better understanding and appreciation, the same are quoted hereunder :-
“Eligibility Criteria :
2. (a) Candidates should be Citizens of India.
(b) Candidates must be in-service candidates of Tamil Nadu
and their service should have been regularized (refer clause 7).
Service Candidates :
7. The candidates who are working in Tamil Nadu
Government Institutions / Local bodies and appointed by the
TNPSC / MRB through Competitive Written Examination
/Special Qualifying Examination and appointed in Tamil Nadu
Medical services should have completed minimum two years
of continuous service as on 31.03.2026 are treated as service
candidates and eligible to apply.
8. (a) The following categories of Medical Officers will be
treated as Service Candidates for the purpose of allotment of
seats:
Medical Officers selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission (TNPSC)/Medical Services Recruitment Board
(MRB) through Competitive Written Examination /Special
Qualifying Examination and appointed in Tamil Nadu Medical
Services should have completed two years of continuous
service, as on 31.03.2026.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
(b) Candidates who have been temporarily appointed but
not qualified through Written Examination conducted by
TNPSC / MRB and who have not completed two years of
continuous service as on 31.03.2026 as per clause 8(a) of this
prospectus, are not eligible to apply for Super Specialty Course
2025 session. If any applications received from such
candidates or even if forwarded inadvertently by the
competent authority that application will be summarily
rejected.
(c) Competent authorities who are forwarding the
applications of Government Medical officers have to issue a
complete Service Particular Proforma including their leave and
deputation in detail, if not the application will be summarily
rejected.”
33. Clause 2 (a) clearly spells out that the candidates should be in-service
of the State of Tamil Nadu and that their service should have been regularised as
referenced in clause 7.
34. Clause 7 clearly stipulates that the candidates should be working in
Tamil Nadu Government Institutions / Local bodies and that their appointment
should be through TNPSC / MRB through Competitive Written Examination /
Special Qualifying Examination and that such appointees in Tamil Nadu Medical
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
services should have completed minimum two years of continuous service as on
31.03.2026.
35. Clause 8 (a) provides the prescription for considering a person as an in-
service candidate for the purpose of allotment of seat. It provides that such
selection should be either by TNPSC or MRB through Competitive Written
Examination / Special Qualifying Examination and that the said persons should
have completed two years of continuous service as on 31.03.2026. Clause 8 (b)
further stipulates that persons, who have been temporarily appointed but not
qualified through Written Examination conducted by TNPSC/MRB and who have
not completed two years of continuous service as on 31.03.2026 as per clause 8
(a) are not eligible to apply.
36. Though the prospectus provides for the above clauses relating to the
manner in which the two years of continuous service would be reckoned which is
relatable to the manner in which the persons have been appointed, however, it is
to be pointed out that the respondent cannot approbate and reprobate through
its very own Government Orders and prospectus. When the Government have
appointed the petitioner and persons similarly placed in the temporary vacancies
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
borne out of the cadre in the time scale of pay by exercising its powers in the
interest of public, the respondents cannot turn back at a later point of time and
claim through the prospectus that such of the persons, who have been appointed
temporarily and not through written competitive examination/SQE conducted by
TNPSC/MRB would not be eligible to apply for the Super Specialty Course if they
have not completed two years of service as contemplated under clause 8 (a).
37. When the respondent, in public interest, had thought it fit to do away
with the process of selection and appointed the persons, including the petitioner
temporarily in vacancies borne out of the cadre, necessarily, the interest of such
serving employees ought to have been taken into consideration by the
Government while issuing the Government Orders.
38. In this regard, it would be worthwhile to point out that vide the
proceedings dated 31.01.2022, , the Government have done away with the
appointment of Non-Service PG Assistant Surgeon towards bond service by their
appointment in a sanctioned post u/s 17 (1) of the Act and instead, their services
shall be through Agreement as per Section 19 (1) of the Conditions of Service Act.
The interests of Non-Service PG Assistant Surgeons were taken care or by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
prospective application through the aforesaid proceedings and such being the
case, the petitioner and other similarly placed persons, who have been rendering
service to the public in their temporarily appointed post, borne out of a cadre,
their interests ought to have been taken care of by the respondents. However, in
detriment to their interests, inspite of the fact that they have been discharging
their work in the temporary posts borne out of the cadre, the petitioner and
other similarly placed persons have been excluded from the purview of
consideration by not regularising their service inspite of the fact that they have
completed the bond period and have been rendering further service under the
Government.
39. Though the prospectus has fixed that only the persons, who have been
appointed through a written competitive examination/SQE conducted by
TNPSC/MRB and who have put in two years of continuous service prior to
31.03.2026 are entitled to participate in the selection process, however, the
appointment of the petitioner and other similarly placed persons being in a
temporary post borne out of a cadre, applying the ratio laid down in
Kaliyamoorthy case (supra) the appointment of the petitioner and other similarly
placed persons ought to be regularised from the date on which they were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
temporarily appointed in service in a substantive post borne out of the cadre.
Therefore, the petitioner and other similarly placed persons are entitled to have
their services regularised from the date on which they were temporarily
appointed in service in a substantive post borne out of the cadre and, they are
entitled for submitting their application for the Super Specialty Course under the
in-service candidates quota.
40. Further one other fact, which bolster the case of the petitioner is that
the petitioner has been appointed temporarily u/s 17 (1) of the Act in a
substantive post borne out of a cadre and joined service on 6.9.2021 at ESI
Hospital, Ayanavaram. Upon the petitioner coming out successful in the SQE
conducted by MRB on 31.01.2026, the petitioner has been issued with the order
of appointment and posting dated 6.3.2026. What is curious to note here is the
fact that before the appointment of the petitioner upon clearing the SQE, the
services of the petitioner, which was on temporary basis has not been terminated
but his services has been continued. There is no break in service between the
temporary appointment u/s 17 (1) of the Act and the subsequent appointment
upon clearing the SQE. Further, the petitioner has been appointed in the very
same place where he was already working, that too without any break in service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
Therefore, for all purposes, the appointment of the petitioner could only be
inferred to be a continuous appointment and the earlier appointment on a
temporary basis in the substantive post borne out of the cadre ought to be
considered as qualified services for the purposes of the conditions laid down in
the prospectus. The appointment of the petitioner prior to his clearing the SQE
and after clearing the SQE has to be harmoniously construed and a harmonious
construction would only lead to the logical conclusion that his appointment as a
temporary Assistant Surgeon in a post borne out of the cadre would definitely
have to be treated as qualifying service as there is no break in service of the
petitioner.
41. For all the reasons aforesaid, the stand of the respondent not to
consider the application of the petitioner in line with the conditions in the
prospectus cannot be countenanced and the writ petition is allowed with the
following directions :-
i) There shall be a direction to the respondents to
consider the application of the petitioner and other
similarly placed persons for admission to Super Specialty
Course for the year 2025-2026 as in-service candidates by
considering the period of service rendered by the
petitioner and other similarly placed persons in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
temporary post, which is borne out of the cadre in the
time scale of pay as qualifying service for the purpose of
fulfilment of the conditions laid down under clause 7 and
8 of the prospectus and their applications shall be
received and considered for selection and admission to
the Super Specialty Course for the year 2025-2026.
ii) The 1st respondent is further directed to receive the
application from all eligible temporary Assistant Surgeons
similar to the petitioner, who have been under temporary
appointment in a post borne out of cadre and process
their application for selection to the balance Super
Specialty courses, which are yet to be filled up under the
in-service candidates category and admit the said persons
on the basis of their inter se merit in the relevant Super
Specialty courses for the year 2025-2026.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
08.04.2026
Index : Yes / No
GLN
Note to Office :
Issue order copy today
i.e., 08.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Govt.
Health & Family Welfare Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Secretariat, Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Medical Education & Research
Kilpauk, Chennai 60 010.
3. The Addl. Director of Medical Education &
Research/Secretary, Selection Committee
O/o The Director of Medical Education
& Research, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
GLN
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
W.P. NO.13354 OF 2026
Pronounced on
08.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
