The Allahabad High Court has held that a Bachelor’s Degree in Physiotherapy cannot be considered equivalent to a degree in medicine as required under the U.P. Food Safety and Drug Administration Department (Food Safety Cadre) (Group A, B, and C) Service Rules, 2012. Justice Ajit Kumar delivered the judgment on July 4, 2025, dismissing a writ petition filed by the candidate seeking relief after being denied participation in the interview stage for the post of Food Safety Officer.
Background
The petitioner, Sandhya Yadav, applied for the post of Food Safety Officer pursuant to Advertisement No. A-2/E-1/2014 issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission on July 14, 2014. After qualifying in the written examination, she was issued a call letter for the interview scheduled on December 19, 2014. However, upon appearing for the interview, she was denied participation on the ground that she did not possess a Bachelor’s Degree in Medicine.
The petitioner challenged this decision, asserting that her Bachelor’s Degree in Physiotherapy from Integral University, Lucknow—a UGC-recognized university—should be considered equivalent to a degree in medicine.
Petitioner’s Submissions
Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Senior Advocate Sri Ashok Khare argued that Physiotherapy is a medical science discipline involving rigorous study in areas such as General Surgery, Neurology, Orthopaedics, and Rehabilitation. He relied on a March 2014 UGC notification which included Physiotherapy within the scope of “Medicine and Surgery / Ayurveda / Unani / Homeopathy / Health and Allied Sciences / Paramedical / Nursing.” He submitted that the Commission acted unfairly by denying the petitioner participation in the interview despite initially accepting her application and allowing her to sit for the written examination.
He also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Smita Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 764, emphasizing the role of constitutional courts in addressing arbitrariness and injustice, even where the passage of time has made direct relief infeasible.
Respondents’ Submissions
Counsel for the U.P. Public Service Commission, Sri Nisheeth Yadav, submitted that the term “degree in medicine” under the 2012 Service Rules must be interpreted in accordance with qualifications recognized by the Medical Council of India (MCI) under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. He pointed out that the State Government, the Commissioner of Food Safety, and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) had all clarified that only an MBBS degree recognized by the MCI qualifies as a “degree in medicine” under the relevant rules.
Relying on decisions in Anoop Kumar v. State of U.P. and Km. Pratima Gupta v. State of U.P., Sri Yadav emphasized that courts cannot undertake equivalence determinations which are the domain of the appointing authority and subject matter experts.
Court’s Analysis
The Court referred to Rule 8 of the 2012 Service Rules, which mandates either a “degree in medicine” or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Central Government. It found that the petitioner’s degree was not recognized as a medical degree by the MCI and therefore did not fulfill the statutory requirement. The Court noted:
“Providing equivalence to qualification prescribed in the rules is essentially a job of experts in the field and for the State Government to formulate on its own volition with regard to such equivalence.”
Justice Ajit Kumar further observed that the University Grants Commission’s recognition of the degree did not suffice unless the Medical Council of India also recognized the course as part of the medical science curriculum:
“In absence of recognition of a course to award degree in the subject of Medical Science… petitioner’s qualification cannot be said to be a requisite qualification under the Service Recruitment Rules, 2012.”
Decision
Dismissing the petition, the Court concluded:
“Degree possessed by the petitioner, being bachelor in Physiotherapy, is not a degree of bachelor in medicine, a requisite academic qualification under Service Recruitment Rules, 2012.”
The Court also noted that the selection process initiated under the 2014 advertisement had been concluded and that reopening the selection at this stage would not be permissible.
Case Title: Sandhya Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.
Case No.: Writ-A No. 5667 of 2015
