ORDER

The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned Official Memorandum dated 31.01.2024 issued by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-A, whereby respondent No.3 is appointed as in-charge Head of Department (HOD)

of ENT Department, Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences.

2. The case on hand pertains to assignment of dual roles, specifically the combination of position of Medical Superintendent and Head of Department, ENT within respondent No.1-Institution as raised by the petitioner. The petitioner’s grievance is that respondent No.3 who is already holding the post of Medical Superintendent cannot occupy the position of Head of Department in terms of 3.7 Regulation of National Medical Commission (NMC).

3. The assignment of dual roles to respondent No.3 who is now called upon to serve as both Medical Superintendent and in-charge HOD of ENT Department raises significant concerns regarding potential conflict of interest, compromised patient care and diminished educational opportunities for students. The respondent No.1 while appointing respondent No.3 as in-charge HOD has clearly contravened Regulation 3.7 of NMC which clearly lays an embargo on a Medical Superintendent in occupying the position of Head of Department.

4. Regulation 3.7 of National Medical Commission, reads as under:

“3.7. The Medical Superintendent of the affiliated teaching Hospital shall possess a recognized postgraduate medical degree from a recognized Institution with a minimum of ten years teaching experience as Professor Associate Professor in the relevant departments of the Hospital, out of which at least five years should be as Professor. Appointment of these posts shall be made on seniority-cum-merit basis. Medical Superintendent shall not occupy the position of the Head of the Department. However, he can head the unit.”

5. On reading the above said Regulation, this Court would find that as per National Medical Commission norms, the Medical superintendent cannot be Head of Department of a clinical department. The very object of laying an embargo against dual roles is clearly intended to avoid conflict of interest. The role of Medical Superintendent involves administrative responsibilities, overseeing the overall functioning of the Hospital and ensuring compliance with Regulations. Having respondent No.3 as both an Administrator and Head of Clinical Department could compromise the impartiality and effectiveness of decision making in both the areas. The role of Medical Superintendent in the Hospital typically involves administrative duties such as managing budgets, staffing, facilities and ensuring compliance with regulations and policies. Medical Superintendent is also responsible for the smooth operation of the Hospital as a whole focusing on aspects like infrastructure, finance and over all organizational efficiency.

6. On the other hand, Head of the Department in the Clinical Department such as Surgery, Medicine, Pediatric, ENT, is responsible for overseeing the medical and clinical aspects of that specific department. This includes supervising medical staff, ensuring quality patient care, setting departmental policies and participating in clinical decision making.

7. Therefore, the very object of Regulation 3.7 is intended to see that same person cannot serve both as Medical Superintendent and HOD of clinical department. The above said Regulation is also intended to have two separate channels for administrative actions and clinical focus. The Medical Superintendent’s primary focus is on administrative task while HOD focuses on clinical matters within their specific department. Balancing both roles effectively can be challenging as they require different skill sets and priorities. If a same person holds both the posts, a conflict may arise while making decisions that affect both the Hospital as a whole and a specific clinical department. The embargo also addresses the main concern of Medical institution where quality of patient care is a top priority