LexDR. J.N. BANAVALIKAR versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1
DR . .1.N. BANA VALIKAR
A
v.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR.
SEPTEMBER 21, 1995
[G.N. RAY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, .JJ.]
B
Se1vice Law:
Municipal Corporation of Delhi-Hospital-Post of Medical Supelin-
tendent-Non-promotional post-Appointment on-Absence of administra-
C
tive policy decision or mle for appointment-Held : In absence of any mle or
administrative policy decision, selection of Medical Superintendent is preroga-
tive of M. C.D.
Constitution of India, 195{}-A1ticle 14--Administrative decision--lf
lacking reasonableness or failplay or tainted with malafide or arbitrminess, D
offends pe1vasive protection under A1ticle 14.
Practice and Procedure-Non--ln1pleadn1ent of persons against whonz
malafide alleged-Cannot be countenanced by the cowt.
Appellant, a senior consultant in Tuberculosis, was on the post of
Specialist Grade-I (T.B. and Chest) in R.B.T.B. Hospital, a specialist
hospital for T.B. and Chest diseases under the M.C.D. He was given
additional charge of Medical Superintendent, being the seniormost doctor
in the hospital, although he was junior to many doctors in the integrated
seniority list in the cadre of Specialist Grade-I.
E
F
•
After having completed live and a half years as Medical Superinten-
dent, appellant was removed from the post. Respondent No. 2, a specialist
in Pathology, who was senior to the appellant in the integrated seniority
list and was holding the post of Medical Superintendent in another hospi- G
tal, was appointed as Medical Superintendent in RBTB Hospital.
Appellant challenged the removal order by filing writ petition under
Article 226 which was dismissed on the ground that as Respondent No. 2
was senior to the appellant in the cadre of Specialist Grade-I, the appellant
had no legal right to continue on the post and no reason to tfel aggri_eved. H
1
A
B
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
In appeal to this Court, the contentions of the appellant were firstly
that in the specialised hospital like the hospital in <1uestion, the post of
Medical Superintendent had always been held by the Senior Specialist in
T.B. and Chest diseases. Secondly, even if administration was competent
to appoint Respondent No.2 by removing the appellant, the action of the
Corporation must be consistent with reasonableness and fairplay and
informed by exigency of administration and thirdly that the order of
removal lacked fairness and reasonableness and was malafide passed in
order to accommodate some junior doctor as Medical Superintendent.
The Respondent Corporation contended that the post of Medical
C Superintendent was non-promotional post and the charge of the same is
given to the senior most Specialist Grade-I.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. The High Court is justified in holding that the Appellant
D had no vested .right to continue as Medical Superintendent of the hOllpita!,
simply because he was given the assignment of Medical Superinteadant
and allowed to hold the oftice for a long time. The Appellant cannot claim
as a matter of right to hold the oftice of Medical Superintendent which is
not a promotional post or a post of special cadre and as a specialist
E. admittedly senior to the appellant in the integrated cadre of Specialist
Grad~·I, has been given the assignment of R.B.T.B. Hospital without
effecting his position as the Head of the Department in his speciality, the
Appellant cannot challenge the appointment of Respondent • 2. [13-D·E]
1.2
In the absenl'e of any rule or administrative policy decision,
F
selection of Medical Superintendent of the hospital under the Corporation
remains prerogative of the Corporation. The appellant has failed to
produce any material to show that there had been any policy decision to
select only a specialist in Tuberculosis and chest diseases as Medical
Superintendent of R.B.T.B. hospital. The efticiency ofa doctor in discharg·
G ing the function of the Medical Superintendent depends more on his
administrative capability. than on his skill and specialization in a par·
ticular stream of Medical Science. [12·8]
2.1. Any action contrary to protection enshrined under Article 14 of
the Constitution is per se void and not to be countenanced as existing.
H Administrative decision of Government will not only be consistent with the
y
•
J.N. BANAV ALIKAR v. M.C.D.
3
competence to take decision but such decision should also conform to A
fairness in action. Such faExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.