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 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 High Court by holding that such objection is of a technical nature. In any event, it was the case of the respondent authorities that the rules governing appointment were amended by following the rules and such amendment was also approved by the competent authority, of Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. Further, the fact of not notifying the amended rules has also been made basis for grant of relief by the High Court. In this regard, the High Court has held that not notifying the amended rules would strike at the root of the amendment process of the recruitment rules, as such, unless such rules are notified, the same cannot be enforced. It appears from the impugned order itself that it was the specific plea in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court that the said rules were not framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and further there is no specific provision in the Rules, Regulations and Bye-Laws of RIMS for notifying the same. It is true that in a public institution, rules are required to be made available, but at the same time 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. [Para 13][339-C-H; 340-A]
2. A copy of the Regulations titled as, “Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998” (as amended upto 11th March 2017) issued by the Medical Council of India is placed on record. As notified in the said Regulations, the academic qualifications and experience applicable for the post of Director of medical institutions differ from those applicable for the post of Director/Medical Superintendent of affiliated teaching hospital. For the post of Director in a medical institution, apart from the academic qualifications, 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 the advertisement dated 16.08.2016 is contrary to the Regulations of Medical Council of India. So far as relaxation of upper age limit, as sought by the petitioners in one of the writ petitions is concerned, High Court has 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 will be within the domain of the employer and no candidate can seek as a matter of right, to provide relaxation clause. [Para 14][340-D-H; 341-A]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.