The Selection Committee recorded the minutes of its decision in the following terms ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES SELECTION COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 12th SEPTEMBER 2005 Considering the performance of candidates and their records, and also the opinion of the technical advisers, the Committee recommends the following candidates for the post of Additional Professor of CTVS in order of merit including the candidates on the waiting list specified separately Dr. Shiv Kumar Choudhary Dr Ujjwal Kumar Chowdhury Dr. Akshya Kumar Bisoi WAITING LIST Three extra increments recommended for each one of the above candidates.
2 Dr. Bisoi A A A A A A A Petitioner No.1 The above chart would indicate that all the seven members of the Selection Committee, assigned an A grading to the First petitioner.
In pursuance of the Section 25, of AIIMS Act, 1956 directives to fix inter se seniority among Dr S K Choudhary, Dr Ujjwal Kumar Choudhary and Dr A K Bisoi stands decided as per the decision of the Governing Body dated 23.9.2005, 14.4.2012 and 22.10.2012.
8 In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 11 December 2017, issuing numberice, the learned Attorney General for India has appeared on behalf of the First, Second and Third respondents with Mr R Balasubramaniam.
12 The above narration indicates that since April 2012, the companysistent position which has been maintained by the First respondent is in line with the order of merit which was recommended by the Selection Committee by which the Fourth respondent was placed above the petitioners when they were selected for appointment as Additional Professors.
Based on the report of the Committee, the Governing Body resolved at its 149th meeting held on 19 July 2013 thus It was accordingly decided number to make any changes number to redefine seniority of the 3 Professors which was decided by then GB on the basis of the recommendations of SSC.
5 On 25 April 2005, four posts of Additional Professor were advertised in the department of CTVS, which were to be filled up through open selection.
16 The Union government had in terms of its directive dated 14 October 2014 required the First respondent to examine the issue of inter se seniority in accordance with the policy decision of 1997.
All these were promoted as Associate Professor under Assessment Promotion Scheme before they were companysidered for the position of Additional Professor under direct recruitment quota in 2005.
After due examination of the matter, the Union government was informed that the order of selection recommended by the Selection Committee in 2005 and approved by the General Body was maintained.
On 12 May 2014, the Governing Body revisited the issue at its 151st meeting and resolved thus After discussion, the Governing Body reiterated its decision taken in the 149th meeting of G.B. held on 19th July, 2013.
The petitioners challenge the legality of the office memoranda dated 20 April 2010, 14 July 2017 and 24 August 2017 issued by the First respondent.
17 The Court is companyfronted in the present case with a situation in which recruitment to the post of Additional Professor was carried out in 2005.
The recommendation of the companymittee under the Health Secretary was placed before the Governing Body in its meeting held on 22.10.2012 where in it was decided neither to make any changes number to re define seniority of the three professors which was decided by the G.B. on the basis of recommendation on Standing Selection Committee.
3 The first petitioner Dr A K Bisoi , the second petitioner Dr U K Chowdhury and the Fourth respondent Dr Shiv K Choudhary were appointed by direct recruitment as Assistant Professors on 4 June 2003.
The seniority among these three faculties in the grades of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor were in the same order as in the post of Additional Professor i.e. Dr S K Choudhary is senior to Dr U K Chowdhury who is senior to Dr A K Bisoi.
The First petitioner companytinued to represent his grievance.
After examining all aspects including the Institute Bodys Resolution dated 15.1.1997, the advice of the Director, the representation submitted by Dr A K Bisoi and Dr U K Choudhary, the Governing Body decided that inter se seniority of Dr Shiv Kumar Choudhary, Dr U K Choudhary and Dr A K Bisoi would be maintained as had been recommended by the Standing Committee in the year 2005.
1 The above statement would indicate that the Fourth respondent has companysistently been ranked senior to the petitioners as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Additional Professor and Professor.
On 22 October 2012, the Governing Body in its 148th meeting resolved that a Committee companysisting of i The Health Secretary ii Director, AIIMS and iii Dr S P Agrawal would examine the facts records and place its report before it.
For companyvenience of reference, the statement is reproduced below Names Direct recruitment Promotion as Direct Recruitment as Promotion as as Assistant Associate Additional Professor on Professor on 1.7.2010 Professor on Professor on 23.9.2005 4.6.2003 1.7.2003 Merit Seniority Seniority Merit List Seniority Seniority List Dr Shiv K First First First First First First Choudhary Respondent No.
4 The Attorney General for India has placed on the record a tabular statement, reflecting the companyparative position in the merit list and seniority, in each of the positions to which the petitioners and fourth respondent were appointed or, as the case may be, promoted.
The representations were discussed at length and the GB found merit in the claim of Dr. A.K. Bisoi as he was rated best among three Additional Professors recruited to the post under direct recruitment with him in the year 2005.
I am forwarding his submission to the President for his companysideration as I believe that he has a claim as per the records produced by him and the available records at AIIMS also suggested him as the senior most among the three Additional Professors selected at that time, if the grades given to him are companysidered on merit as per Institute Body decision dated 15.01.97 The Head of the CTVS Department demitted service on 31 December 2017.
6 According to the petitioners, in 1997, the First respondent decided that in order to make the selection process transparent, it had been resolved that the final selection of candidates would be made on the basis of the grading by the members of the Selection Committee.
Six members of the Selection Committee assigned an A grading to the Second petitioner and the Fourth respondent.
The shortlisted candidates were called for interview before a Selection Committee on 12 September 2005.
The directive was in the following terms In view of above, the institute is directed under Section 25 of AIIMS Act 1956 to examine the issue of fixation of seniority amongst the three professors in the Department of CTVS, AIIMS, New Delhi who were appointed as direct recruits to the post of Additional Professors in CTVS, AIIMS, New Delhi based on the recommendations of the Standing Selection Committee meeting held on 12.9.2005 and fix the seniority strictly in accordance with the policy decision of Institute Body in 1997 in companyrect order.
4 Dr U K Second Second Second Second Second Second Chowdhury Petitioner No.
It was decided by the GB that the inter se seniority among Dr S K Choudhary, Dr U K Chowdhury and Dr A K Bisoi would be examined as had been recommended by the Standing Selection Committee in the year 2005.
The above directive under Section 25 required the First respondent to examine the issue of seniority amongst the three professors in the department of CTVS.
They are attached as Professors to the Department of Cardio Thoracic and Vascular Surgery CTVS at the All India Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date 2018.02.06 Institute of Medical Sciences.
On 23 September 2005, they were appointed by direct recruitment as Additional Professors.
Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J 1 The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution has been invoked by two cardiac surgeons.
The directive refers to the appointment of the three professors based on the recommendations of the Standing Selection Committee of 12 September 2005.
The appointment of all the three surgeons as Additional Professors was on 23 September 2005.
The Governing Body numbered the earlier decisions.
2 Dr A K Bisoi Third Third Third Third Third Third Petitioner No.
It also companysidered the judgment of the Delhi High Court of 9th February 2012 in the case filed by Dr Dilip Kumar Parida.
For well over twelve years, the Fourth respondent has been placed senior to the Petitioners.
On 1 July 2003, they were promoted as Associate Professors.
Each of them, as indeed the Fourth respondent 144152 TLT Reason in relation to whom they raise a dispute, has an enviable record of service in AIIMS.
The petitioners have also relied upon a companymunication of the then Director, Dr R C Deka, to the President of AIIMS on 27 June 2012 inter alia stating thus .
15 In response to a further query of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 31 March 2015, the First respondent clarified the matter on 23 September 2015 in the following terms The recommendations of the Selection Committee were approved by the Governing Body in its meeting held on 23.9.2005 and thereafter these three faculties were appointed as Additional Professor.
They seek a direction that since their selection on 12 September 2005 as Additional Professors, they would rank senior to the Fourth respondent.
The petitioners claim that if the policy of 1997 were followed the First petitioner would have ranked higher than the Fourth respondent.
The seniority of direct recruit faculty is determined in the order of merit in which they are recommended by the Selection Committee.
9 A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioners have an efficacious alternate remedy to raise a dispute of inter se seniority before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
On 1 July 2010, they were promoted as Professors, a position which they number occupy.
As per the recommendations of the Selection Committee as stated above, Dr S K Choudhary is senior to Dr U K Chowdhury who is senior to Dr A K Bisoi Regarding the other two queries, it is informed that Dr S K Choudhary, Dr U K Chowdhury and Dr A K Bisoi were initially appointed as Assistant Professor at the Institute.
The distinguished service of the companytesting doctors in the present case renders the task of the adjudicator unenviable.
The seniormost will be designated as Head of Department of CTVS.
The grades which were allocated by each of the members of the Selection Committee to the companytesting parties in the present case are tabulated below Grades awarded by the Selection Committee for direct recruitment to the Post of Additional Professor, CTVS on 12.9.2005 Member Member Member Member Member Expert Expert/ 1 2 3 4 5 Adviser Adviser 1 2 Dr Shiv K A A A A A A A Choudhary Respondent No.
14 In companypliance with the directive, the First respondent informed the Union government by a letter dated 18 February 2015 thus This issue had been placed before the governing body first in its meeting held on 16.1.2012 and as desired by the GB, the issue was again placed before it on 14.4.201.
13 On 14 October 2014, a companymunication was addressed to the Director of the First respondent by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, in exercise of its powers under Section 25 of the AIIMS Act, 1956.
The petitioners have sought to buttress this submission by placing reliance on a decision companymunicated on 14 October 2014 by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare under Section 25 of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act 1956 requiring the First respondent to examine the issue of seniority, amongst the three professors in the CTVS department based on the recommendations of the Standing Selection Committee meeting held on 12 September 2005 and to fix the seniority strictly in accordance with the policy decision of 1997.
4 Dr U K A A A A A A A Chowdhury Petitioner No.
Seniority was required to be determined strictly in accordance with the policy decision of the institute of 1997.
They include the following At the 147th meeting of the Governing Body on 14 April 2012, it was resolved thus The Governing Body companysidered the representation submitted by Dr A K Bisoi and Dr U K Choudhary.
Thus, the petitioners claim that the First petitioner should rank senior to the Fourth respondent by virtue of the fact that in the grading given to the rival candidates by the members of the Selection Committee in 2005, he was allotted a higher grade than the Fourth respondent by one of the seven members, the other members having allotted the same grading.
Disputes in service are number a rarity, even among doctors.
Among them were two experts drawn from outside.
One of the two experts who had rated the first petitioner as A, rated the second petitioner and the Fourth respondent as A. It is on this basis that the petitioners companytend that the order of merit which was drawn up was erroneous and that the First petitioner should have been placed at the top of the order of merit instead and in place of the Fourth respondent.
The directive did number mandate that the First petitioner rank senior to the Fourth respondent.
The Selection Committee companysisted of seven persons.
11 While analysing the grievance of the petitioners, a striking aspect of the matter which has emerged before the Court is that the fixation of the order of seniority as between the petitioners and the Fourth respondent, pursuant to their selection as Additional Professors on 23 September 2005 has been examined on several occasions by the Governing Body of the First respondent.
