Telangana High Court rules against increased service weightage in medical recruitment

The petitioner, Bommena Vanaja from Jagtial district, challenged this GO issued by the principal secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, which altered the selection criteria for posts of MPHA (F).

The judgment dated November 12, delivered by Justice Pulla Karthik, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the government decision to increase service weightage to 30 points for service in government hospitals/institutions/programmes for the post of MPHA (F).

The petitioner contended that this modification was arbitrary and in direct contravention of a binding precedent set by a full bench of the Telangana High Court in a 2020 order, which had established a maximum limit of 20 points for service weightage in such selections.

The respondents, represented by the Advocate General, argued that the hike in service points was a policy decision intended to acknowledge the long-standing services of contractual and outsourced employees, particularly those working in rural and tribal areas, some of whom had served for over 15 years in a grassroots-level post like MPHA (F).

They also pointed out that the petitioner filed the writ petition almost 16 months after the corrigendum was issued and just days before the examination, in which over 20,600 candidates appeared. However, the court dismissed the timing argument, noting that the corrigendum was issued before the last date for submitting applications, meaning the “rules were not changed in the middle of the game.”

The court reviewed its own history of rulings, including the 2020 full bench order, which had categorically held that service weightage marks “shall not be more than 20 marks out of total marks of 100, or not more than 20 per cent of the total marks.” The court asserted that “this principle had attained finality and was binding upon State Government Services.”

In its final decision, the court ruled that the reliance placed by the respondents on policy autonomy was “misplaced and unfounded.” It concluded that the enhancement of service weightage marks from 20 to 30 is “directly contrary to the binding precedent of the Full Bench of this Court.”

Consequently, the writ petition was allowed.