DR. AKSHYA BISOI AND ANOTHER versus ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 890 · Decided: 06-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
890
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
DR. AKSHYA BISOI AND ANOTHER
v.
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No 1179 of 2017)
FEBRUARY 06, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Service Law:
Inter-se Seniority – Determination of – Sought by filing petition
u/Art. 32 of the Constitution – In respect of the selection to the post
of ‘Additional Professor’ made in September 2005 – On the basis
of recommendations of Standing Selection Committee – Held: The
Policy of 1997 indicates that the gradings given by all the members
of the Selection Committee and the technical experts are to be placed
before Chairman of the Selection Committee and final selection ‘may
be made’ on the basis of gradings given by the members and the
experts of the Committee – The Committee, in making final
recommendation in regard to the order of merit of the candidates,
had taken into consideration their performance, their records and
the opinion of the experts – Therefore, the ranking assigned cannot
be regarded as being in breach of Policy of 1997 – It would be
iniquitous to unsettle the position of seniority over twelve years
after the petitioners and fourth respondent were selected as
Additional Professors – The delay on the part of the petitioners in
seeking recourse to legal remedies, must weigh against them – Delay/
Laches – Constitution of India – Art. 32.
The two petitioners (cardiac surgeons in All India Institute
of Medical Sciences) seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the
first respondent to determine their seniority in relation to the
fourth respondent kin terms of a binding Policy of 1997.
According to the petitioners at the time of their (petitioners and
4th respondent) selection as ‘Additional Professors’ Grades
allocated to petitioner No.1 were higher to respondent No.4 as
one of the Members/Expert Advisers had allocated higher grades
as compared to respondent No.4 and therefore, would rank senior
to respondent No.4.
                                      [2018] 1 S.C.R. 890
         890
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
891
Dismissing the Petition, the Court
HELD : 1. Recruitment to the post of Additional Professor
was carried out in 2005,  i.e. well over 12 years ago. The petitioners
have instituted these proceedings under Article 32 in November
2017 to question the order of ranking made by the Selection
Committee on 12 September 2005. There is no cogent
explanation for this belated recourse to legal remedies.  The
petitioners cannot legitimately explain the delay on their part
merely by contending that they were representing to the First
respondent to remedy their grievances. The petitioners may have
believed in good faith that the AIIMS administration would pay
heed to their grievances. They had a sympathetic ear of the Union
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. But twelve years is too
long a period, by any means, to not seek recourse to judicial
remedies. As the narration of facts would indicate, the Governing
Body had on 14 April 2012 decided to maintain the order of merit
in terms of which the Fourth respondent was ranked first, above
the two petitioners. Even thereafter, a three member committee
was constituted by the Governing Body in October 2012 and a
decision was once again taken on 19 July 2013 to maintain the
order of seniority.  This was reiterated on 12 May 2014 and 22
June 2016.  The petitioners were thus aware of the consistent
position which was adopted by the First respondent. The delay
on their part in seeking recourse to their legal remedies must
weigh against them.  At this stage it would be manifestly unfair to
unsettle the inter se seniority between the three Professors in
the CTVS department by reopening the recommendation made
by the Selection Committee in 2005. [Para 17] [902-G-H; 903-A-
C]
State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari
(2013) 12 SCC 179 : [2013] 9 SCR 609 – relied on.
2. As per the 1997 Policy, the gradings allocated by the
members of the Selection Committee and the technical experts
are to be placed before the Chairman of the Selection Committee
and the final selection of the candidates “may be made” on the
basis of the gradings/markings of the members of the committee
and the technical experts. The expression “may be made” .  The
judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dr Dilip Kumar Parida v
AIIMS holds that the view of the experts who are co-opted in the
DR. AKSHYA BISOI AND ANOTHER v. A.I.I.M.S & OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.