Expressing deep concern over the functioning of the Uttar Pradesh Medical Department, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, presided over by Justice Siddharth Nandan, granted the State one final opportunity to explain why key departments in medical colleges are being run by ad hoc and contractual Associate Professors instead of regularly appointed Professors. The Court warned that failure to provide full disclosures regarding vacant posts, requisitions, and recruitment advertisements could lead to proceedings to fix personal accountability on the responsible officials.
Background of the Case
The proceedings stem from a writ petition challenging an order dated June 3, 2025, issued pursuant to a Government Order dated April 15, 2022, concerning various medical colleges across Uttar Pradesh. Taking note of the challenge, the Court observed that the Medical Department appeared to be functioning in a most unsatisfactory manner, noting that rather than making regular appointments, the authorities sought to replace ad hoc employees with other ad hoc personnel.
To assess the systemic issue, the Court had earlier formulated five specific queries for respondent no. 3, seeking:
- A comprehensive chart detailing Heads of Departments across State medical colleges who hold the designation of Associate Professor or Assistant Professor due to the absence of Professors despite existing vacancies;
- The total number of Professor vacancies across all medical colleges in Uttar Pradesh;
- Requisitions forwarded for filling the vacant Professor positions;
- Details and current status of advertisements issued pursuant to those requisitions, along with specific reasons where advertisements have not been issued despite requisitions being sent; and
- Clarification on whether posts currently managed by Officiating Principals have been advertised for selection.
Submissions of the Parties and Representation
During the hearing, advocate Akhtar Ali appeared on behalf of the petitioner, Srinivasan Gandhi. The State respondents were represented by the learned Standing Counsel (C.S.C.).
The learned Standing Counsel submitted that factual instructions had been received in the matter and prayed for time to enable respondent no. 3 to file a personal affidavit. In response to a direct query from the Bench, the Standing Counsel placed on record instructions concerning the functioning of Heads of Departments across 13 medical colleges and two Government Medical Institutions in the State.
The Court’s Analysis
Upon evaluating the factual list submitted by the State, the Court expressed grave dismay at the administrative reality in the State’s medical education institutions, observing:
“A bare perusal of the said list shocks the conscience of the Court, as in most of the Medical Colleges, there are hardly any professors functioning as Heads of Departments, and the same positions are being manned by Associate Professors in the majority of cases.”
The Court also took exception to departments being run on temporary arrangements, noting that certain Heads of Departments are engaged purely on a contractual basis. Remarking on this pattern, the Court observed:
“It gives an impression to the Court that the Medical Department is working in a most lethargic manner. Moreover, if the important departments of the medical colleges are being headed by Associate Professors, and that too on contractual basis, their accountability and functioning can be judged by the nature of their appointments.”
Scrutinizing the records, the Court highlighted that in medical colleges at Kannauj, Azamgarh, Banda, and Badaun, more than 50 percent of the leadership positions are being manned by Associate Professors.
The Court further recorded its surprise over the state of affairs at the State Medical College, Prayagraj, where critical disciplines—including Cardiology, Microbiology, Radiodiagnostics, Psychiatry, Endocrinology, Neurology, and Neurosurgery—are functioning under Heads of Departments who hold the rank of Associate Professor.
The Decision and Directives
Deeming it appropriate to grant the State Government one final indulgence to make amends, the Court directed respondent no. 3 to file a personal affidavit on or before November 2, 2026.
The Court mandated that the personal affidavit must specifically disclose:
- The exact number of vacancies for the post of Professor across various medical colleges and medical institutions in Uttar Pradesh;
- Whether requisitions have been sent against the identified vacancies;
- Whether advertisements have been issued pursuant to those requisitions; and
- A specific explanation in cases where advertisements have not been published despite requisitions having been dispatched, failing which the Court may take further steps to fix personal accountability on the concerned officers.
The Court also directed the respondents to ensure that any unsent requisitions are promptly dispatched and placed on record through the affidavit. In addition, respondent no. 3 must append a detailed chart specifically listing every department where an Associate Professor functions as Head of Department, as well as all departments across every medical college where Heads of Departments are engaged on a contractual basis.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on November 3, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. The Registrar (Compliance) has been directed to forthwith communicate the order to respondent no. 3.
Case Details:
Case Title: Srinivasan Gandhi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Case No.: WRIT-A No. 13035 of 2026
Bench: Justice Siddharth Nandan
Date: October 13, 2026
