SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 116

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

IMPORTANT POINT
Petition after unexplained delay of 12 years to unsettle inter se seniority cannot be allowed.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Delay and latches – Delay of 12 years in challenging seniority despite being aware of management’s view – No cogent explanation for delay – Unfair to unsettle inter se seniority after 12 years – Petitioners not entitled to relief. (Para 17, 18)

       (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











































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top