Concerns raised over roster implementation and cadre restructuring at PGIMER

Chandigarh, (IshanSamvad) Serious concerns have been raised regarding the implementation of reservation in promotions, roster management, and cadre restructuring in the Radiotherapy Technical Cadre at Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), following a formal representation submitted to the institute authorities.

The representation alleges that the current system deviates from established legal principles and Government of India instructions governing post-based reservation and cadre management.
At the core of the issue is the alleged adoption of a vacancy-based approach to reservation, in place of the post-based roster system mandated by the Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab. The judgment had unequivocally held that reservation must be applied to sanctioned posts and not to vacancies, and that once the prescribed quota is achieved, further reservation is impermissible.
The representation further claims that certain unreserved (UR) roster points have been occupied by candidates belonging to reserved categories and counted towards reserved representation. While such appointments may be permissible if made on merit, counting them against the reserved quota could lead to excess representation, thereby distorting the roster balance.
Another issue highlighted is the reported blocking or prolonged non-filling of reserved roster points. It is alleged that some reserved posts have remained unfilled for over a decade. As per Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines, such vacancies are required to be periodically reviewed and, if necessary, considered for dereservation after a stipulated number of recruitment cycles, in order to avoid administrative stagnation and ensure functional efficiency.
The representation also raises concerns regarding the application of reservation in small cadres. It has been contended that reservation has been applied despite the cadre having a limited number of posts, allegedly in disregard of judicially evolved principles that require caution and proportionality in such cases.
A significant aspect of the dispute pertains to cadre composition. It is alleged that several senior Technical Assistants currently counted under the Radiotherapy cadre originally belong to the Radiology cadre, and have been included without a formally notified cadre restructuring or due administrative process. Experts note that any such shift would require explicit approval, along with corresponding adjustments in sanctioned strength.
In this context, the representation proposes two alternatives: either such personnel be counted in their parent Radiology cadre, or their inclusion in the Radiotherapy cadre be regularised by adding eight posts to the sanctioned strength with effect from March 1, 1992, so as to maintain roster integrity and cadre balance.
Further, it has been alleged that despite an increase in total sanctioned posts, corresponding revisions in the number of posts at different levels of the cadre hierarchy have not been undertaken. This, according to the representation, is contrary to the recommendations of the Prabhakar Committee, which emphasise proportionate adjustment across the cadre structure to maintain functional balance and promotional avenues.
The issue of reservation in promotions has also been raised with reference to M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, which requires the State to collect quantifiable data demonstrating inadequacy of representation before extending reservation in promotions. The representation alleges that no such exercise appears to have been undertaken in the present case.
Taken together, these concerns point to a potential distortion in cadre structure, imbalance in representation, and possible administrative inefficiencies.
The representation has urged the institute to undertake a comprehensive review of the roster, reconstruct the post-based roster in accordance with DoPT guidelines, map incumbents against roster points, and ensure compliance with binding judicial precedents and administrative instructions.
Officials at the institute were not immediately available for comment.