Recruitment Rules Framed Under Administrative Necessity Are Not Subject To Norms Designed For Other Central Government Hospitals: Delhi High Court

"The High Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, also cannot direct the Government and/or the Department to formulate a particular regularisation policy. Framing of any scheme is no function of the Court and is the sole prerogative of the Government." Delhi High Court, in a judgment dated October 9, 2026, held that recruitment rules for nursing staff at the Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute (VPCI) are not invalidated by staffing norms specifically designed for other Central Government hospitals.

A bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain observed that the "Norms for Nurses in Central Government Hospitals" cannot be mandatorily applied to institutions not specified within those norms, particularly when the institution is governed by its own statutory framework and Governing Body.

The Delhi Nurses Union challenged the 2019 recruitment rules of VPCI, arguing that the creation of a "Nursing Superintendent" post was illegal because the institute’s bed capacity (128 beds) fell below the threshold of 250 beds prescribed in the 1992 Staff Inspection Unit (SIU) norms. The petitioner contended that the rules restricted promotional avenues for existing staff and that the institute was bound by the nursing hierarchy norms applicable to other Central Government hospitals. Conversely, VPCI argued that it is an autonomous institution under the University of Delhi, that the SIU norms were never extended to it, and that its recruitment rules were framed with the approval of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) to meet specific administrative requirements.

The court was primarily tasked with determining whether VPCI is legally obligated to adhere to the 1992 SIU nursing norms despite not being among the seven hospitals originally covered by them. Additionally, the court addressed whether the judiciary can issue a mandamus to direct the creation or sanctioning of specific posts and whether recruitment rules can be challenged solely on the basis of perceived non-conformity with norms intended for different hospital structures.

Inapplicability of External Norms

The court firmly rejected the argument that the 1992 SIU norms applied to VPCI. It noted that the norms explicitly identified seven specific hospitals under the administrative control of the MoHFW, and VPCI was not among them. The bench emphasized that there was no statutory or administrative order extending these norms to VPCI, rendering the petitioner's primary ground for challenge unsustainable.

Policy Prerogative in Post Creation

Addressing the contention that a Nursing Superintendent post should not exist in a hospital with fewer than 250 beds, the court clarified that the norms were not exclusionary. The court observed that the provision stating a Nursing Superintendent shall exist for hospitals with 250+ beds did not function as a prohibition against creating such posts in smaller institutions. The creation of such posts remains a matter of policy and administrative necessity.

"The creation of a post is a policy and administrative decision to be taken by the management based on the requirements of the hospital."

Judicial Restraint in Service Matters

The bench reiterated the principle of non-interference in matters of policy and administrative sanctioned strength. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, the court held that a writ court cannot, under Article 226 of the Constitution, issue a mandamus directing the government or its departments to sanction or create posts. Such powers fall strictly within the domain of the executive.

Promotional Avenues and Eligibility

The court dismissed the grievance that existing staff were being denied promotion by the advertisement of the Nursing Superintendent post. It accepted the VPCI’s unrebutted submission that none of the current nursing staff met the eligibility criteria for the feeder post of Assistant Nursing Superintendent. Therefore, the institution’s decision to proceed with recruitment was deemed a necessary measure for maintaining the hospital's operational efficiency.

"The High Court, in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot issue mandamus and/or direct to create and sanction the posts."

The court concluded that since the norms relied upon by the petitioner were not applicable and the institute’s recruitment process was grounded in its own governing rules approved by the Ministry, there were no grounds for judicial interference. The writ petition was consequently dismissed.

Date of Decision: 09 October 2026