Dr. Akshya Bisoi and Another vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Others

HELD : 1. Recruitment to the post of Additional Professor was carried out in 2005, i.e. well over 12 years ago. The petitioners have instituted these proceedings under Article 32 in November 2017 to question the order of ranking made by the Selection Committee on 12 September 2005. There is no cogent explanation for this belated recourse to legal remedies. The petitioners cannot legitimately explain the delay on their part merely by contending that they were representing to the First respondent to remedy their grievances. The petitioners may have believed in good faith that the AIIMS administration would pay heed to their grievances. They had a sympathetic ear of the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. But twelve years is too long a period, by any means, to not seek recourse to judicial remedies. As the narration of facts would indicate, the Governing Body had on 14 April 2012 decided to maintain the order of merit in terms of which the Fourth respondent was ranked first, above the two petitioners. Even thereafter, a three member committee was constituted by the Governing Body in October 2012 and a decision was once again taken on 19 July 2013 to maintain the order of seniority. This was reiterated on 12 May 2014 and 22 June 2016. The petitioners were thus aware of the consistent position which was adopted by the First respondent. The delay on their part in seeking recourse to their legal remedies must weigh against them. At this stage it would be manifestly unfair to unsettle the inter se seniority between the three Professors in the CTVS department by reopening the recommendation made by the Selection Committee in 2005. [Para 17] [902-G-H; 903-AC] State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari (2013) 12 SCC 179 : [2013] 9 SCR 609 – relied on.

2. As per the 1997 Policy, the gradings allocated by the members of the Selection Committee and the technical experts are to be placed before the Chairman of the Selection Committee and the final selection of the candidates “may be made” on the basis of the gradings/markings of the members of the committee and the technical experts. The expression “may be made” . The judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dr Dilip Kumar Parida v AIIMS holds that the view of the experts who are co-opted in the selection process is only advisory and that the members of the Standing Selection Committee of AIIMS are not bound by their opinion. This position in the judgment of the Delhi High Court should not be read to suggest that the experts who are co-opted as part of the Selection Committee have no role and that the other members have to decide on the selection, independently of their views. Experts are co-opted in order to ensure that the Selection Committee is broad-based; that the selection is objective; and that the experience and knowledge of experts drawn from outside provides a valuable input in the ultimate decision. The fact that selection ‘may be made’ on the basis of the grading given by the members of the Selection Committee and the technical experts suggests that the determination of merit is not merely a mechanical totalling of grades allotted. The Selection Committee has to act objectively. This undoubtedly requires giving due credence to the view of the experts. But while doing so, it must have due regard to all relevant aspects bearing on the interest of the institution. The Selection Committee has to assess the credentials of the candidates which would include the service profile of the candidate. It is in this sense that the Delhi High Court has to be construed to mean that while the views of the experts co-opted to the Selection Committee constitute a valuable perspective and input, they cannot be regarded as binding. The members of the Selection Committee would have to consider the views of the experts and to evaluate them together with all other relevant circumstances. [Paras 20 and 21] [905-G-H; 907-A-C]

3. In the present case, while making its recommendations for appointment to the post of Additional Professor, the Selection Committee had borne in mind the performance of the candidates, their records as well as the opinion of the technical experts. The minutes of the meeting of 12 September 2005 indicate that the views of the technical experts were considered. Hence, the ranking which has been assigned cannot be regarded as being in breach of the policy decision of 1997. It would be iniquitous to unsettle the position of seniority, over twelve years after the petitioners and the Fourth respondent were selected as Additional Professors. Even thereafter, when each of them has been promoted as a Professor, it is the Fourth respondent who has been ranked higher than the petitioners. [Para 22] [907-CG]