SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., A.M. KHANWILKAR, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
Dr. Akshya Bisoi & Another – Petitioners
Versus
All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1179 of 2017
Decided On : 06-02-2018
(2013) 12 SCC 179 – Relied upon
(b) Service law – Selection – AIIMS policy of 1997 – Selection ‘may be made’ considering gradings given by selection committee members and co-opting experts – Delhi High Court in the sense rightly observing that opinion of experts, though valuable input, is not binding – Instantly, Selection Committee considering performance of candidates, their records as well as opinion of technical experts – No infirmity. (Para 21, 22, 23)
LPA 360 of 2004 (Del) – Cited with approval
Facts of the case:
The first petitioner (Dr A.K. Bisoi), the second petitioner (Dr U.K. Chowdhury) and the Fourth respondent (Dr Shiv K Choudhary) were appointed by direct recruitment as Assistant Professors on 4 June 2003. On 1 July 2003, they were promoted as Associate Professors. On 23 September 2005, they were appointed by direct recruitment as Additional Professors. On 1 July 2010, they were promoted as Professors, a position which they now occupy. The seniormost will be designated as Head of Department
The Fourth respondent has consistently been ranked senior to the petitioners as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Additional Professor and Professor. The appointment of all the three surgeons as Additional Professors was on 23 September 2005. For well over twelve years, the Fourth respondent has been placed senior to the Petitioners.
The petitioners claim seniority over the fourth respondent.
Finding of the Court:
Petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution has been invoked by two cardiac surgeons. They are attached as Professors to the Department of Cardio Thoracic and Vascular Surgery (CTVS) at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. Each of them, as indeed the Fourth respondent in relation to whom they raise a dispute, has an enviable record of service in AIIMS. Disputes in service are not a rarity, even among doctors. The distinguished service of the contesting doctors in the present case renders the task of the adjudicator unenviable. That one of them will rank senior is no reflection of the merit of the others. Life is not always equitable in assigning accolades.
2. The relief which the petitioners seek is a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the First respondent to determine their seniority in relation to the Fourth respondent in terms of a binding policy of 1997. They seek a direction that since their selection on 12 September 2005 as Additional Professors, they would rank senior to the Fourth respondent. The petitioners challenge the legality of the office memoranda dated 20 April 2010, 14 July 2017 and 24 August 2017 issued by the First respondent.
3. The first petitioner (Dr A.K. Bisoi), the second petitioner (Dr U.K. Chowdhury) and the Fourth respondent (Dr Shiv K Choudhary) were appointed by direct recruitment as Assistant Professors on 4 June 2003. On 1 July 2003, they were promoted as Associate Professors. On 23 September 2005, they were appointed by direct recruitment as Additional Professors. On 1 July 2010, they were promoted as Professors, a position which they now occupy. The seniormost will be designated as Head of Department of CTVS.
4. The Attorney General for India has placed on the record a tabular statement, reflecting the comparative position in the merit list and seniority, in each of the positions to which the petitioners and fourth respondent were appointed or, as the case may be, promoted. For convenience of reference, the statement is reproduced below:
Names Direct recruitment as Assistant Professor on 4.6.2003 Promotion as Associate Professor on 1.7.2003 Direct Recruitment as Additional Professor on 23.9.2005 Promotion as Professor on 1.7.2010
| Names | Direct recruitment as Assistant Professor on 4.6.2003 | Promotion as Associate Professor on 1.7.2003 | Direct Recruitment as Additional Professor on 23.9.2005 | Promotion as Professor on 1.7.2010 | ||
| Merit List | Seniority | Seniority | Merit List | Seniority | Seniority | |
| Dr Shiv K Choudhary (Respondent No. 4) | First | First | First | First | First | First |
| Dr U.K. Chowdhury (Petitioner No. 2) | Second | Second | Second | Second | Second | Second |
| Dr A.K. Bisoi (Petitioner No. 1) | Third | Third | Third | Third | Third | Third |
The above statement would indicate that the Fourth respondent has consistently been ranked senior to the petitioners as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Additional Professor and Professor. The appointment of all the three surgeons as Additional Professors was on 23 September 2005. For well over twelve years, the Fourth respondent has been placed senior to the Petitioners.
5. On 25 April 2005, four posts of Additional Professor were advertised in the department of CTVS, which were to be filled up through open selection. The shortlisted candidates were called for interview before a Selection Committee on 12 September 2005. The Selection Committee recorded the minutes of its decision in the following terms:
“ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
SELECTION COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 12th SEPTEMBER 2005
Considering the performance of candidates and their records, and also the opinion of the technical advisers, the Committee recommends the following candidates for the post of Additional Professor of CTVS in order of merit including the
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.