The High Court of Manipur conducted a detailed legal analysis of the recruitment rules pertaining to the Director position at RIMS, focusing on the framing and amendment of eligibility criteria. This case brings to light the intricacies involved in setting forth requirements for such prestigious roles, highlighting the importance of adhering to legal protocols and regulations in the recruitment process.
Facts
- High Court of Manipur at Imphal quashed the advertisement dated 16.08.2016 inviting applications for the post of Director in Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal.
- An advertisement dated 16.08.2016 was issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India inviting applications for the post of Director.
- Writ petition W.P.(C)No.676 of 2016 was filed before the High Court of Manipur, challenging the lack of relaxation for upper age limit in the said notification.
- The Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS) in Imphal is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
- The post of Director at RIMS was historically given to senior professors on an in-charge basis.
- Writ petitioners in W.P.(C)No.676 of 2016 and others requested a change in the age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years.
- Representations were made to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare without a positive response.
- A separate writ petition, W.P.(C)No.722 of 2016, was filed by another professor at RIMS challenging the eligibility experience criteria in the advertisement.
- The Society originally registered as ‘North Eastern Regional Medical College’ later changed its name to ‘Regional Institute of Medical Sciences’ (RIMS).
- A previous writ petition, W.P.(C)No.617 of 2015, was filed to quash the advertisement and enforce the upper age limit of 60 years for Director eligibility.
- The post of Director at RIMS was last held by Dr. S. Sekharjit Singh and has been vacant since 14.09.2015.
- An advertisement on 24.06.2015 was issued for direct recruitment of a Director with an upper age limit of 50 years and retirement age of 62 years.
Also Read: Ensuring Constitutional Rights: Analysis of Default Bail in Legal Case
Arguments
- Two candidates filed writ petitions challenging the recruitment rules and regulations for the post of Director at RIMS.
- One candidate argued that the criteria prescribed by the Medical Council of India for the Director post were not followed in the notification.
- He sought to quash the notification and renotify it with the correct criteria.
- Another candidate argued that the vacancy occurred in 2015 and the rules in place at that time should be followed for filling the position, not the amended rules.
- Both candidates highlighted discrepancies between the rules in the 2015 and 2016 advertisements.
- The High Court directed the authorities to consider providing relaxation in age limit or qualification for the candidates.
- Interim orders from the Supreme Court allowed the selection process to proceed, subject to the outcome of Special Leave Petitions.
- Affidavits filed by the respondents opposed the relief sought by the petitioners.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Reservation in Promotions and Seniority Benefits
Analysis
- High Court delved into the validity of the Rules despite no challenge being raised in the writ petitions.
- The Rules for appointment to the post of Director were amended and approved by the competent authority.
- The High Court considered the lack of notification of the amended rules as a basis for granting relief.
- The experience requirement for the Director and Director/Medical Superintendent posts differed as per Medical Council of India Regulations.
- The advertisement dated 16.08.2016, specifying qualifications, was challenged in the writ petitions.
- The contention that the rules were not framed under Article 309 of the Constitution was not accepted by the High Court.
- The High Court dismissed objections regarding the lack of proper pleading as ‘technical.’
- The eligibility criteria are determined by the employer and cannot be demanded by candidates as a right.
- Relaxation of the upper age limit may be considered by the competent authority if necessary, but it cannot be demanded by candidates as a right.
- The High Court’s direction to provide relaxation in the absence of such provision in the advertisement raises questions.
- Employers can notify relaxation criteria when needed, but candidates cannot claim it as a right.
- The experience eligibility criteria stated in the advertisement are not in violation of Medical Council of India regulations.
Also Read: Analysis of Teacher Appointments Policies
Decision
- Union of India and RIMS filed civil appeals challenging the High Court’s order quashing the advertisement dated 16.08.2016.
- The appeals were allowed by the Supreme Court, setting aside the impugned order of the High Court.
- The common judgment and order dated 27.03.2017 passed by the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in W.P.(C) No.676 of 2016; W.P.(C)No.722 of 2016; and W.P.(C)No.766 of 2016 were set aside, resulting in the dismissal of the writ petitions.
Case Title: DR. THINGUJAM ACHOUBA SINGH Vs. DR. H. NABACHANDRA SINGH (2020 INSC 342)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002250-002252 / 2020
