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

2002 Supreme(Del) 1791

High Court Of Delhi
HEALTH INDIA (REGISTERED) - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 5937 of 2002
Decided On : 11/29/2002

Advocates Appeared:
NKUR J.IN, K.K.Sud, M.N.KRISHN. M.NI, M.NOJ KUM.R D.S, MUKT. GUPT., MUKUL GUPT., N.RENDER BISHT, NIR.J J.IN

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a petitioner to have locus standi to file a public interest litigation, and the court's authority to dismiss a petition on this ground.

Headnote:

Director Appointment - All India Institute of Medical Sciences - All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956, Section 3, 4, 10, 11, 28, 29 - The court discussed the provisions of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956, including the composition of the institute, the appointment and tenure of the director, and the power of the central government to make rules and regulations. The court also considered the appointment and extension of the director, the age of superannuation, and the procedure for appointment and extension, ultimately dismissing the petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the extension of the tenure of the Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, alleging that the extensions were contrary to the provisions of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956. The petitioner filed the petition as a public interest litigation.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the petition, sustaining the preliminary submission of the respondents about the locus standi of the petitioner to file the petition.

Issues: The issues included the legality of the extensions given to the Director, the locus standi of the petitioner to file the public interest litigation, and the nature of the appointment and extension of the Director.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to file the public interest litigation and dismissed the petition. The court also made observations on the merits of the case, including the nature of the appointment and extension of the Director.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with observations on the merits of the case, including the nature of the appointment and extension of the Director.

A. K. Sikri

( 1 ) THE issue raised in this petition which is filed in the nature of public interest litigation relates to the appointmentof the Director of All India Institute of medical Sciences (for short the Institute ). In fact the petitioner has challenged orders dated 21st April, 1999 and 19th June, 2001 vide which the tenure of the respondent No. 3 as Director of the Institute was extended twice. These extensions are challenged by the petitioner alleging that the same are contrary to the provisions contained in the All India Institute of medical Sciences Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act ) as well as Rules and Regulations framed under the said Act. Before we embark upon the controversy which is raised in this petition, it would be apposite to have background material which shall enable us to appreciate the controversy more appropriately.

( 2 ) THE All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act is a Central enactment which came into existence in the year 1956, with the objectives to develop patterns of teaching in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education in all its branches so as to demonstrate a high standard of medical education to all medical colleges and other allied institutions in India and to bring together in one place educational facilities of the highest order for the training of personnel in all important branches of health activity as also. to attain self-sufficiency in postgraduate medical education. It is one of the premier institutions in the country.

( 3 ) AS per Section 3 (2) of the Act, the Institute shall be a body corporate by the name "all India Institute of medical Sciences , having perpetual succession and a common seal. Section 4 provides for Composition of the institute and stipulates the persons who would be members thereof and includes the Director of the institute as ex-officio member. Section 10 provides that there shall be a Governing Body of the Institute which shall be the executive committee of the Institute and shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions as the Institute may, by regulations made in this behalf, confer or impose upon it. In addition, the Institute may constitute as many Standing committees and as many adhoc committees as it thinks fit for exercising any power or discharging any function of the Institute or for inquiring into, or reporting or advising upon, any matter which the institute may refer to them [section 10 (5)]. Section 11 provides for the Staff of the Institute and reads as under s

"11. Staff of the Institute (1) There shall be a chief executive officer of the Institute who shall be designated as the director of the Institute and shall, subject to such rules as may be made by the Central government in this behalf, be appointed by the institute: Provided that the first Director of the institute shall be appointed by the Central government. (2) The Director shall act the Secretary to the institute as well as the Governing Body. (3) The Director shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions as may be prescribed by regulations or as may be delegated to him by the Institute or the President of the institute or by the Governing Body or the chairman of the Governing Body. (4) Subject to such rules as may be made by the central Government in this behalf, the institute may appoint such number of other officers and employees as may be necessary for the exercise of its powers and discharge of its functions and may determine the designations and grades of the such other officers and employees. (5) The Director and other officers and employees of the Institute shall be entitled to such salary and allowances and shall be governed by such conditions of service in respect of leave, pension, provident fund and other matters as may be prescribed by regulations made in this behalf. "

( 4 ) SECTION 28 of the Act empowers the Centr government to make rules to carry out the purposes the Act. Sub-section (2) thereof specifically provid for the m
















































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top