Supreme Court expounds: Not notifying the eligibility criteria cannot invalidate the recruitment process. Read Judgement

In the case of Dr. Thingujam Achouba Singh & Ors.  Vs.  Dr. H. Nabachandra Singh & Ors. etc., Justice R Banumathi and Justice Subhash Reddy of Supreme Court allowed the appeals and dismissed the Manipur High Court Judgment expounding that not notifying the eligibility criteria cannot invalidate the recruitment process.

FACTS:

The Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred as RIMS) is registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860 in 1975. The said society runs one of the largest public health institutions in the north eastern region in India. The affairs of the RIMS are governed and regulated by bye laws, rules, and regulation of the RIMS. The post of director of the RIMS fell vacant on 14.09.2015.On 24.06.2015 an advertisement was issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India for filling the post. In the said advertisement the upper age limit was 50 years, relaxable for the Govt. Servants/RIMS officers and specially qualified candidates and retirement age was notified at 62 years. The advertisement was challenged in the High Court by a writ petition for quashing the advertisement. Subsequently, a fresh advertisement was issued wherein the upper age limit was 60 and relaxable criteria is removed.

SUBJECT MATTER

The subject matter of the 2016 writ petition is pertaining to the appointment of Director of RIMS.

HC WRIT PETITIONS:

1. Writ Petition No. 676 of 2016.

The said petition sought for quashing the advertisement of 16.08.2016 because the non-relaxation in the upper age limit is illegal and asked the respondent to allow the petitioners to participate in the selection process.

2. Writ Petition No. 722 of 2016

The petition was filed by one of the professors of the RIMS on ground that the eligibility criteria notified in the advertisement process is contrary to the criteria prescribed by the Medical Council of India. It is pleaded that as per Medical Council of India, to hold the post of the director one must have the experience of 10 years as teacher/professor/assistant professor/reader out of which 5 year should be as a Professor of the Department. The notification mentions 14 years’ experience without any 5 year’s experience.

3. Writ Petition No. 766 of 2016

The same advertisement was challenged on ground that the vacancy to the post of director occurred on 14.09.2015, so the post of the vacancy should be filled by the rules and regulations existing on the date of vacancy. It was mentioned that the rules and regulation for the appointment of the director is different from the date of vacancy.

  SUPREME COURT FINDINGS:

1. Supreme Court observed that the high court erred in deciding the validity of the rules and regulations as none of the writ petition has challenged the rules and regulation regarding the appointment of the director. Also, the high court brushed aside the claim in the counter affidavit filed claiming that the contention regarding the validity of the rules and regulation has not been raised by the respondent authorities.
2. The Supreme Court also observed that not notifying the amended rules of the appointment to the public at large cannot invalidate the appointment process as it is not mentioned in any rules, regulations and bye-laws.
3. The Supreme Court replied to the contention of the appointment process being contrary to the rules prescribed by the Medical Council of India that the RIMS will be governed by the “ Minimum Qualification for Teachers in the Medical Institution Regulations, 1998”  where it is mentioned that the post of director can be given to a person who has 10 years’ experience of teaching for the affiliate teaching hospital and the RIMS is an affiliate teaching hospital.
4. Supreme Court Bench stated that,"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".

Based on the above reason the Supreme Court has allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court.

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com: