DR. L.M. NATH versus DR. S.K. KACKER AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 834 · Decided: 08-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
DR. L.M. NATH 
v. 
DR. S.K. KACKER AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 8, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Se1vice Law : 
All l11dia Institute of Medical Sciences Rules, 1958 : 
Rules 7(3), 7(4}-Director of All India Institute of Medical Scien-
ces-Appointment-Tenn of respondent having expired, President of Institute 
appointing senionnost Professor as interim Director-High Court restraining 
authorities from implementing the order and directing the respondent to 
continue-High Court not justified in its inteiference-Presidellt is empowered 
D to appoint interim Director for six months or till regular appoilltment is made, 
E 
whichever is earlier. 
Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Director of the All India In-
stitute of Medical Sciences, on October 15, 1990 for a tenn of 5 years. His 
term was to expire on October 14, 1995. On June 5, 1995 the Institute Body, 
which is the apex body of the Institute, appointed a Select Committee to 
set in motion the process for selection of the Director. Though respondent 
No. 1 applied for re-appointment, it was· decided that no extension could 
be given to him and instead his case would also be considered along with 
others for fresh appointment as Director. Meanwhile as a result of a writ 
F 
petition filed before the High Court, the Committee ·could not go through 
the process of selecting the Director before the term of respondent No. 1 
expired on October 14, 1995. On 15.10.1995, the President of the Institute, 
exercising the power under Rule 7(4) of the All India Institute of Medical 
Sciences Rules, 1958, appointed the appellant to look after the functions 
of the Director of the Institute with effect from the forenoon of 15th 
G October, 1995 for a period not exceeding six months or till such time a new 
Director was appointed. The appellant co'ntinued to function till October 
19,1995, when the High Court, in the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 
1, passed an interim order restraining the Institute to implement the order 
dated October 15, 1995 and directed that respondent No. 1 would continue 
H to hold the office of the Director of tlie Institute and function as such till 
834 
..,. 
( 
f 
L.M. NATH v. S.K. KACKER 
835 
,.. 
further orders from the Court. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the appeal A 
by special leave. 
• 
\ 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, 
this Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court was not at all justified in its interference. B : 
The post of Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences is a tenure 
post. The order of appointment of respondent-I as the Director came to 
an end in the afternoon of October 14, 1995. Unless there is an order 
expressly extending his tenure under Rule 7(4) of the All India Institute 
of Medical Sciences Rules 1958, he has no right to continue after C 
14.10.1995. The Court cannot exercise the power of the authorities under 
Rule 7(4) except when it deems legal to consider them to be so exercised 
for the reasons to be given in the order. [837-H, 838-A] 
2. The President of the Institute passed the order under main part 
of Rule 7(4), which empowers him to appoint the seniormost Professor. In D 
the 1974 seniority list, produced by respondent No. 1, he is the seniormost 
and the appellant is the second seniormost. Since respondent No. 1 has 
already held the office of the Director and the Institute Body has decided 
not to reappoint him except through the process of selection, by necessary 
implication, he would not be considered to be appointed even as interim E 
Director pending regular appointment under Rule 7(3) of the Rules. The 
consequence would be that the appellant being the next seniormost in 
order, the President of the Institute was justified in appointing him as the 
interim Director pending appointment of the Director or for six months 
whichever may be earlier. Any other interpretation would be a negation of F 
the conscious action of the Institute body. [838-D-F] 
L.P. Agga1Wal v. Union of India, AIR (1992) SC 1872, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10205 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.95 of the Delhi High 
Court in C.M. No. 6473/95 arising out of C.W.P. No. 3865 of 1995. 
D.D. Thakur and G. Ramaswamy, Brijesh Garg and Mukul Gupta 
G 
for the Appellant. 
H 
836 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995j SUPP. 4S.C.R. 
A 
Harish Salve, Maninder Singh, Ms. Bharati Anand, G.K. Bansal, Ms. 
B 
c 
Mukta Gupta Sanjay Bansal, Ajay
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.