Supreme Court Overrules High Court Decision on RIMS Director Appointment
The Supreme Court of India recently overturned a High Court ruling regarding the appointment process for the Director of the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal. The case revolved around the advertisement issued on August 16, 2016, inviting applications for the post of Director.
Background of the Case
The RIMS, Imphal, a prestigious medical institution registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, faced a leadership crisis following the vacancy of the Director’s post on September 14, 2015. The position was temporarily filled by senior professors until the government issued an advertisement for recruitment.
The eligibility criteria outlined in the advertisement became a matter of dispute. Several candidates, including the petitioners, challenged the conditions, particularly the upper age limit and required experience.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioners argued that the upper age limit should have been relaxed for government servants and RIMS officers.
- They contended that the experience criteria should have been in line with the Medical Council of India regulations, which required five years of professorship experience.
- One of the petitioners claimed that the recruitment rules were amended without proper notification, thereby making them invalid.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The respondents maintained that the recruitment rules were duly approved by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and followed existing norms.
- They argued that the eligibility criteria adhered to the ‘Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998’ and were in line with norms for a teaching hospital affiliated with Manipur University.
- The respondents contended that there was no legal requirement to notify the recruitment rules separately.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in striking down the recruitment rules, particularly when they were not directly challenged in the petitions. The Court also found that:
- The recruitment rules were validly amended and approved by competent authorities.
- The absence of public notification of the rules did not render them invalid.
- The prescribed experience criteria did not violate Medical Council of India regulations.
- No candidate had an absolute right to claim relaxation of the upper age limit.
The Court remarked, “The High Court has committed an error in going into the validity of the Rules, in absence of any challenge to the same.”
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, thereby upholding the validity of the August 16, 2016 advertisement and the selection process based on it. The Court ruled that the appointment of Dr. Ahanthem Santa Singh as Director of RIMS, made pursuant to this advertisement, was legally valid.
This ruling clarifies the legal standing on eligibility criteria and the importance of procedural propriety in recruitment processes in public institutions.
Petitioner Name: Dr. Thingujam Achouba Singh & Ors..Respondent Name: Dr. H. Nabachandra Singh & Ors..Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice R. Subhash Reddy.Place Of Incident: Imphal, Manipur.Judgment Date: 17-04-2020.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Dr. Thingujam Achoub vs Dr. H. Nabachandra S Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 17-04-2020.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
