SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI., SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, RANJAN GOGOI, M.Y. EQBAL & VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.
FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF AIIMS - APPELLANT
VS.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4500 of 2002
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5119 OF 2002
Decided On : July 18, 2013.
1959 Supp (2) SCR 375 - Relied
(b) Medical Education - Recruitment to Super-speciality posts - Reservation to backward classes - Not permissible in view of Indra Sawhney’s case - Central and State Governments urged to take adequate steps in accordance with the views and directions in Indra Sawhney’s case. (Para 19)
(1992) Supp. (3) SCC 215; (1984) 3 SCR 942; (1999) 7 SCC 120 - Relied upon
(1980) 2 SCR 831; (1988) Supp. SCC 794; (1984) 3 SCC 654; (2003) 11 SCC 146; (2002) 8 SCC 481; (2006) 8 SCC 212; (2005) 1 SCC 394; (1981) 4 SCC 296 - Referred
Facts of the case:
The question raised before the High Court was whether reservation was inapplicable to specialty and super-specialty faculty posts in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences.
The Division Bench of the High Court confined itself to the limited issue, namely, whether reservation policy was inapplicable for making appointments to the entry level faculty post of Assistant Professor and to super specialty posts and also whether the resolutions adopted by AIIMS on 11.1.1983 and 27.5.1994 were liable to be struck down.
Finding of the Court:
Indira Sawhney’s case is binding in the matter.
Result : Appeals disposed of.
JUDGMENT
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.
1. When Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2106 of 2002, filed by the Faculty Association of AIIMS, was taken up for consideration, notice thereupon was issued by a Bench of Two-Judges and it was stipulated that any appointment to be made, after the order was passed in accordance with the reservation policy, would only be tentative in nature until further orders. When the Appeal was taken up for hearing on 20th February, 2003, along with Civil Appeal No. 5119 of 2002, considering the important nature of the issues involved for determination in the said cases, as also the recurring nature of the problem, it was thought appropriate that the matters be heard by a larger Bench. Thereafter, on 12th February, 2004, a Bench of Three-Judges headed by the Chief Justice was of the view that the matters involved substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and were required to be heard by a Bench of Five-Judges. It is pursuant to such direction that the matter appeared before the Bench of Five-Judges on several occasions and ultimately they were listed before a Bench of Five-Judges on 2nd July, 2013.
2. Although the matter is now before a Bench of five Judges, the terms of reference are not very clear. From what we have been able to gather from the pleadings and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, the question to be considered is whether reservation was inapplicable to specialty and super-specialty faculty posts in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, hereinafter referred to as “AIIMS”. Faced with the decisions of this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1992) Supp. (3) SCC 215]; Jagdish Saran & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1980) 2 SCR 831]; and Dr. Pradeep Jain etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors. etc. [(1984) 3 SCR 942], wherein reservation in admission to specialty and super-specialty courses was disallowed, the Division Bench of the High Court confined itself to the limited issue, namely, whether reservation policy was inapplicable for making appointments to the entry level faculty post of Assistant Professor and to super specialty posts and also whether the resolutions adopted by AIIMS on 11.1.1983 and 27.5.1994 were liable to be struck down.
3. Appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. P.P. Rao, learned Senior Advocate, firstly referred to the statement of objects and reasons of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956, which provides as follows :
“For improving professional competence among medical practitioners, it is necessary to place a high standard of medical education, both post- graduate and under-graduate, before all medical colleges and other allied institutions in the country. Similarly, for the promotion of medical research it is necessary that the country should attain self- sufficiency in post-graduate medical education. These objectives are hardly capable of realisation unless facilities of a very high order for both undergraduate and post-graduate medical education and research are provided by a central authority in one place. The Bill seeks to achieve these ends by the establishment in New Delhi of an institution under the name of the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences. The Institute will develop patterns of teaching in under- graduate and post-graduate medical education in all its branches so as to demonstrate a high standard of medical education to all medical colleges and other allied institutions, will provide facilities of a high order for training of personnel in all important branches of health activities and also for medical research in its various aspects. The Institute will have the power to grant medical degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions which would be recognised medical degrees for the purpose of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1933.”
4. Mr. Rao also referred to Section 5 of the Act which declared the institute to be an institution of national importance. As pointed out by Mr.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
Jagdish Saran v. Union of India
Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India
Dr. Jagadish Saran v. Union of India
Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India
Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P.
Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka
Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad-Deccan v. Vazir Sultan and Sons
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.