Gujarat’s dialysis programme is facing a patient-safety controversy after the state Congress alleged that 346 technicians recruited for dialysis centres submitted certificates whose validity was questioned in a Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report for 2023–25.
The allegation was raised by Gujarat Congress spokesperson Parthivrajsinh Kathavadia at a press briefing at the Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee headquarters on Wednesday. He demanded an inquiry into the recruitment of haemodialysis technicians and action against officials responsible for the appointments.
According to Kathavadia, 662 technicians were recruited across more than 250 dialysis centres under the Gujarat Dialysis Programme. He said 346 of them had submitted certificates issued by Bharat Sevak Samaj, a voluntary organisation. The CAG report, he said, questioned the basis for recognising those certificates because supporting documentary evidence establishing the candidates’ eligibility was not available.
The concern is significant because dialysis centres depend on trained technicians to operate equipment and support a treatment process used by patients with serious kidney disease. The report supplied for this story does not establish that any patient was harmed or that the technicians were unqualified. It records the Congress’s interpretation of the CAG observations and its demand for a formal investigation.
Kathavadia also questioned the outsourcing model used by health authorities for recruitment. He alleged that the agency involved in the process had stated that selected candidates would be required to pass the Class XII examination within one year of appointment. The Congress described this condition as an unacceptable risk to healthcare standards.
The recruitment issue also brings attention to the institutional chain behind public dialysis services. The state health authorities, the outsourced recruitment agency, the dialysis-centre operators and the certifying organisation each have distinct roles in establishing eligibility, documenting qualifications and maintaining service standards. Any inquiry would therefore need to determine how the certificates were accepted, what checks were conducted before appointments and whether the recruitment conditions complied with the programme’s requirements.
The CAG report’s reported concerns, as cited by the Congress, relate to the documentary basis for recognising the certificates. The supplied report does not include the relevant CAG passages, the government’s response, details of the recruitment tender or the precise qualification standards applicable to the technicians. It also does not report any official statement from Gujarat’s health authorities responding to the allegations.
The Congress has called for strict action against officials it believes were responsible for the appointments. Its immediate demand is an inquiry into the recruitment of the 346 technicians and the broader outsourcing process. Any further action will depend on the state government’s response and on the findings of an official examination of the certificates, recruitment records and qualification requirements.
