1. Dispute over inter se seniority among professors — challenge to merit ranking for appointment as Additional Professors based on a grading policy. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
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 Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Petition after unexplained delay of 12 years to unsettle inter se seniority cannot be allowed.
Petition after unexplained delay of 12 years to unsettle inter se seniority cannot be allowed.
Subject
Service Law - Seniority
Act Referred
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners seek seniority based on mathematical summation of grades — Respondents assert the Selection Committee's discretion and the availability of an alternate remedy. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 )
3. The court observed that the claim was stale due to excessive delay and that the selection policy permits holistic assessment over mechanical grade totaling. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. Stale claims for promotional benefits are barred by laches — selection committees may evaluate candidates holistically rather than through mechanical summation of grades. (Para 18 , 21 )
6. Does an unexplained delay in challenging seniority rankings affect the maintainability of a petition for promotional benefits?
Yes. A stale claim for promotional benefits should not be entertained. Excessive and unexplained delay (laches) disentitles a party to relief, as those who sleep over their rights must suffer the consequences. (Para 17 , 18 )
7. Is a selection committee bound to determine merit solely through the mathematical summation of grades if the policy states selection may be made on such basis?
No. The use of the expression may be made instead of will be made indicates that merit determination is not a mechanical totaling of grades. The committee must act objectively, considering all relevant aspects and the institution's interests. (Para 20 , 21 )
8. What is the legal status of the opinions provided by co-opted experts in a selection process?
The role of experts is advisory. While their input is valuable for ensuring objectivity and providing specialized perspective, their views are not binding on the Selection Committee, which evaluates candidates on broader parameters including suitability and demeanour. (Para 21 )
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 candidates on the waiting list specified separately :-
1. Dr. Shiv Kumar Choudhary
2. Dr. Ujjwal Kumar Chow
