DR. THINGUJAM ACHOUBA SINGH & ORS. versus DR. H. NABACHANDRA SINGH & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2020] 6 S.C.R. 332 · Decided: 17-04-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
332
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
DR. THINGUJAM ACHOUBA SINGH & ORS.
v.
DR. H. NABACHANDRA SINGH & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2250-2252 of 2020)
APRIL 17, 2020
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Service Law: Recruitment – The Regional Institute of Medical
Sciences (RIMS), Imphal is registered society and running public
health care institutions in the north east India – Advertisement dated
16.08.2016 was issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
inviting applications for the post of Director of RIMS – Writ petitions
filed for quashing the advertisement on the ground that it did not
provide relaxation in upper age limit; that the experience of 14
years for eligibility, as notified in advertisement was contrary to
the criteria prescribed by Medical Council of India (MCI); that the
vacancy to the post of Director had fallen vacant on 14.09.2015,
as such Regulations which were existing on the date of vacancy
would apply – In all the three writ petitions, advertisement dated
16.08.2016 inviting applications to fill up the post of Director was
under challenge, and no challenge to the Rules and Regulations
governing the recruitment to the post of Director was made – High
Court however went into the validity of recruitment rules and
recorded finding that rules were not amended as per the Rules,
Regulations and Bye-Laws of the Society – Further, notification
was quashed on the ground that after amendment to the Rules, such
rules were not notified to public at large, as such, they were not in
the public domain – High Court also held that the experience criteria
as prescribed by the MCI Regulations was not prescribed in the
advertisement and such regulations would have a binding effect,
for filling up the post of Director in RIMS – Held: High Court
committed an error in going into the validity of the Rules, in absence
of any challenge to the same – Not notifying to public at large cannot
be the ground to invalidate the notification, in the absence of any
provision to that effect in the Bye-Laws of the Society or the Rules
and Regulations framed for recruitment to the post of Director – As
notified in “Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 332
332
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
333
Institutions Regulations, 1998” issued by the MCI, the academic
qualifications and experience applicable for the post of Director
of medical institutions differed from those applicable for the post of
Director/Medical Superintendent of affiliated teaching hospital –
For the post of Director in a medical institution, ten years’
experience as Professor/Associate Professor/Reader in a medical
college, out of which at least five years should be as Professor in a
department, is prescribed – However, for the post of Director/
Medical Superintendent of the affiliated teaching hospital the
required experience is ten years only – It is the specific case of the
respondents that the RIMS is an affiliated teaching hospital – In
view of such stand of the respondents it cannot be said that the
experience for eligibility notified in advertisement dated 16.08.2016
is contrary to the MCI Regulations – So far as relaxation of upper
age limit is concerned, High Court directed the competent authority
and Executive Council of the Society to consider for providing such
relaxation clause – It is not understandable as to how such direction
can be given by the High Court for providing a relaxation which is
not notified in the advertisement – While it is open for the employer
to notify such criteria for relaxation when sufficient candidates are
not available, at the same time nobody can claim such relaxation as
a matter of right – The eligibility criteria is within the domain of the
employer and no candidate can seek as a matter of right, to provide
relaxation clause – Order of High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In none of the writ petitions, rules governing
appointment to the post of Director was under challenge, the
High Court has gone into the validity of the Rules, as amended,
and held that amendments to the Rules were not carried out by
following the Rules, Regulations and Bye-Laws of the Society.
The specific plea of the respondent authorities in the writ
petitions, that there is no challenge to validity of the rules but
same has been brushed aside by the High Court by merely stating
that such an objection is of technical in nature. Such objection
raised should not have been brushed aside by the

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