The Madhya Pradesh High Court on January 27, 2026, ruled that MPPSC cannot disqualify Medical Officer and Specialist candidates for lacking postgraduate additional registration when the requirement was not stated in the recruitment advertisement. The court held that eligibility conditions must be clearly mentioned upfront and cannot be introduced later in the selection process.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on January 27, 2026, ruled that the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) cannot reject medical candidates in its recruitment process on the basis of a postgraduate additional registration requirement that was not part of the advertised eligibility criteria. The court clarified that eligibility conditions must be stated in the recruitment advertisement itself.
A division bench of the High Court headed by Justice Jai Kumar Pillai heard a batch of writ petitions filed by qualified medical practitioners. The candidates had applied for recruitment to the posts of Medical Officer (Grade-I) and Specialist Doctors under the Public Health and Medical Education Department through the MPPSC.
According to the recruitment advertisement issued by MPPSC, the essential eligibility criteria required possession of a recognized postgraduate qualification in the relevant medical specialty and permanent registration with the State Medical Council. The advertisement did not include any requirement for a separate “Post Graduate Additional Registration Certificate” by a specified cut-off date.
Despite meeting the qualifications and applying within the prescribed period, several candidates were later excluded at the document verification stage or after provisional results. MPPSC treated the separate postgraduate additional registration as a mandatory condition and rejected candidates who had obtained it after the cut-off date of April 21, 2025.
The petitioners argued that neither the original advertisement nor any corrigendum made this additional registration an eligibility condition. They also noted that delays in result declarations or administrative processes affected their ability to obtain the additional registration on time.
The High Court agreed with the petitioners. The bench observed that introducing an unstated eligibility requirement after the recruitment process had begun amounts to altering the rules of the selection process. The court said such changes violate principles of fairness and transparency and infringe on candidates’ rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The court held that if the MPPSC intended to make the postgraduate additional registration an essential condition, it should have clearly stated so in the advertisement. The bench also rejected reliance on a Government Gazette notification to add eligibility conditions not expressly mentioned in the recruitment notification.
The High Court allowed the petitions and directed the competent authority to verify whether the petitioners possessed the required recognized postgraduate qualification and whether the result was declared on or before April 21, 2025. Candidates who meet these criteria should not be excluded from the recruitment process on the basis of not having additional registration by the cut-off date.
MPPSC did not issue a response at the time of publication.
What is postgraduate additional registration for doctors?
Postgraduate additional registration refers to an extra registration entry reflecting a doctor’s postgraduate qualification with the State Medical Council, separate from basic permanent medical registration.
Who is eligible for MPPSC Medical Officer posts?
As per the recruitment advertisement, eligibility requires a recognized postgraduate medical qualification in the relevant specialty and permanent registration with the State Medical Council. The High Court clarified that no additional unstated registration conditions can be imposed later.
What did the MP High Court rule on MPPSC recruitment?
The court ruled that MPPSC cannot disqualify Medical Officer and Specialist candidates for lacking postgraduate additional registration when this requirement was not mentioned in the original recruitment notification, calling such post hoc conditions unfair and unconstitutional.
(Rh/MSM)