Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 311

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
Dr. Thingujam Achouba Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Dr. H. Nabachandra Singh & Ors. etc. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2250-2252 OF 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)Nos.15093-15095 of 2017] WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2253-2255 OF 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)Nos.4853-4855 of 2019]
Decided On : 17-04-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):S. Gowthaman, Rajeev Sharma, G. Balaji, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Punam Kumari, Kumar Mihir, Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Academic qualifications and experience applicable for post of Director of medical institutions differ from those applicable for post of Director/Medical Superintendent of affiliated teaching hospital.
(2) Eligibility criteria will be within domain of employer and no candidate can seek as a matter of right, to provide relaxation clause.

Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India – Article 309 – Framing of rules – In a public institution, rules are required to be made available, but at the same time not notifying to public at large cannot be the ground to invalidate the notification, in absence of any provision to that effect in Bye-Laws of Society or Rules and Regulations framed for recruitment to post of Director. (Para 13)
(B) Service Law – Appointment on post of Director in a medical institution – Academic qualifications and experience applicable for post of Director of medical institutions differ from those applicable for post of Director/Medical Superintendent of affiliated teaching hospital – For post of Director in a medical institution, apart from academic qualifications, ten years’ experience as Professor/Associate Professor/Reader in a medical college, out of which at least five years should be as Professor in a department, is prescribed – However, for post of Director/Medical Superintendent of affiliated teaching hospital required experience is ten years only – It is specific case of respondents that RIMS is an affiliated teaching hospital – In view of such stand of respondents it cannot be said that experience for eligibility notified in advertisement is contrary to Regulations of Medical Council of India – While it is open for employer to notify such criteria for relaxation when sufficient candidates are not available, at the same time nobody can claim such relaxation as a matter of right – Eligibility criteria will be within domain of employer and no candidate can seek as a matter of right, to provide relaxation clause – Impugned common judgment and order passed by High Court set aside. [Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998] (Paras 14 and 15)
Facts of the Case:
Present civil appeals are filed, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.03.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.676 of 2016; W.P.(C)No.722 of 2016; and W.P.(C)No.766 of 2016, passed by the High Court of Manipur at Imphal. By the aforesaid impugned order, the High Court has quashed advertisement dated 16.08.2016, inviting applications to fill up vacant post of Director in Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal.
Findings of the Court:
Academic qualifications and experience applicable for the post of Director of medical institutions differ from those applicable for the post of Director/Medical Superintendent of affiliated teaching hospital. For the post of Director in a medical institution, apart from the academic qualifications, ten years’ experience as Professor/Associate Professor/Reader in a medical college, out of which at least five years should be as Professor in a department, is prescribed. However, for the post of Director/Medical Superintendent of the affiliated teaching hospital required experience is ten years only.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Civil Appeal Nos. of 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)Nos.15093-15095 of 2017]

1. Leave granted.

2. These civil appeals are filed, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.03.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.676 of 2016; W.P.(C)No.722 of 2016; and W.P.(C)No.766 of 2016, passed by the High Court of Manipur at Imphal. By the aforesaid impugned order, the High Court has quashed advertisement dated 16.08.2016, inviting applications to fill up the vacant post of Director in Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal.

3. The Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as, ‘RIMS’), Imphal is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in the year 1975. The said Society was initially registered as ‘North Eastern Regional Medical College’ and same was subsequently re-registered and changed its name as ‘Regional Institute of Medical Sciences’ (RIMS). The said Society runs one of the biggest public health care institutions in the north eastern region of India. The affairs of RIMS are governed and regulated by the Memorandum of Association (MOA), Rules, Regulations and Bye-Laws of the RIMS.

4. The post of Director of RIMS was last held by Dr. S. Sekharjit Singh and same has fallen vacant on 14.09.2015. Since then the post of Director was given to some senior professors of the Institute on Incharge basis from time to time. At first instance on 24.06.2015, an advertisement was issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India for filling up the post of Director, RIMS, Imphal by direct recruitment. In the said advertisement, the upper age limit was notified at 50 years, relaxable for Govt. Servants/RIMS officers and specially qualified candidates and retirement age was notified at 62 years. The writ petitioners in W.P.(C)No.676 of 2016 and some others have made a representation dated 01.07.2015 to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India for changing the age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 years. All the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.676 of 2016 have either completed the age of 62 years or are nearing completion of 62 years. They again submitted representations on 08.07.2015 and 16.07.2015. Having failed to get any positive response they approached the High Court by filing writ petition in W.P.(C)No.617 of 2015 for quashing the advertisement with a direction to respondents to fill up the post of Director, in accordance with Clause 12 of the Rules and Regulations of RIMS, by fixing the upper age limit for eligibility at 60 years. In the said writ petition, some interim orders were passed but in the meantime, Office Memorandum No.B/1734/96-RIMS(Pt.-I) dated 20.04.2016 was issued by the Director of RIMS notifying the age of superannuation at 65 years, with the approval of Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India. The said writ petition was withdrawn. It appears that, in view of the enhancement of age of superannuation to 65 years, another advertisement dated 16.08.2016 was issued by prescribing the upper age limit of 62 years in the eligibility criteria without any relaxation, for Government servants/RIMS officers, also.

5. When fresh advertisement dated 16.08.2016 was issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India inviting applications for the post of Director, writ petition in W.P.(C)No.676 of 2016 was filed before the High Court of Manipur, mainly on the ground that in the said notification relaxation for upper age limit was not provided for. As such, in the said writ petition relief was sought for quashing the advertisement dated 16.08.2016, so far as it relates to non-providing of relaxation in upper age limit as illegal, with a consequential direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners therein to participate in the selection process. Questioning the very same advertisement, one other professor working in RIMS has filed another writ petition in W.P.(C)No.722 of 2016, mainly on the ground that the experien

Click Here to Read the rest of this document