Supreme Court Upholds AIIMS Seniority Based on Selection Committee Merit: Bisoi vs. AIIMS (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 06 February 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 111

Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A. M. Khanwilkar, J, Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J

Can a selection committee’s merit list override individual grading scores in determining seniority? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a dispute between cardiac surgeons at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). This case revolves around the interpretation of AIIMS’s 1997 policy on faculty selection and the weight given to expert opinions in the selection process. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, with the opinion authored by Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute between three cardiac surgeons at AIIMS: Dr. Akshya Bisoi (Petitioner 1), Dr. Ujjwal Kumar Chowdhury (Petitioner 2), and Dr. Shiv Kumar Choudhary (Respondent 4). All three were initially appointed as Assistant Professors on June 4, 2003, and subsequently promoted to Associate Professors on July 1, 2003. On September 23, 2005, they were directly recruited as Additional Professors. They were further promoted to Professors on July 1, 2010. The dispute arose regarding their seniority as Additional Professors, which would determine who would head the Department of Cardio Thoracic and Vascular Surgery (CTVS).

The petitioners contended that based on the grading system followed by the Selection Committee in 2005, Dr. Bisoi should have been ranked higher than Dr. Shiv Kumar Choudhary. However, AIIMS consistently maintained that seniority was to be determined by the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee, which placed Dr. Shiv Kumar Choudhary as senior. The petitioners challenged the office memorandums issued by AIIMS on April 20, 2010, July 14, 2017, and August 24, 2017, which upheld Dr. Shiv Kumar Choudhary’s seniority.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioners initially approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus to determine their seniority. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioners had an alternate remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal. However, the Supreme Court decided to hear the matter on its merits, considering the importance of the issue and the fact that the Delhi High Court’s judgment on the role of experts in selection committees was being challenged.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956, specifically Section 25, which states:

“25. Control by Central Government The Institute shall carry out such directions as may be issued to it from time to time by the Central Government for the efficient administration of this Act.”

The petitioners relied on a directive issued by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare under Section 25 of the AIIMS Act, which required AIIMS to examine the seniority issue based on the 1997 policy. The 1997 policy of AIIMS stated that:

“In order to make the selections transparent and more participatory, it is proposed that all the members of the Selection Committee as well as the technical experts should be asked to give confidentially gradings/markings of each candidate in the following manner
1) A+
2) A
3) B+
4) B
5) C
The gradings given by all the members of the Selection Committee and technical experts should be placed before the Chairman of the Selection Committee and final selection of the candidate will be made on the basis of gradings/markings given by the members of the Selection Committee and the technical experts as mentioned above. In case, there is a tie in the gradings in respect of any candidate, the final decision for the selection of the candidate, should rest with the Chairman of the Selection Committee after discussion with other members of the Selection Committee.”

The modified comments inter alia stated thus:

“(i) All the members of the Selection Committee as well as the Technical Experts may be asked to give, confidentially, gradings/markings to each candidate in the following manner : –
a) A+
b) A
c) B+
d) B
e) C
(ii) The gradings given by all the members of the Selection Committee and the Technical Experts, may be placed before the Chairman, Selection Committee and final selection of the candidates may be made on the basis of the gradings/markings given by the Members of the Selection Committee and the Technical Experts as mentioned above. In case, there is a ‘tie’ in the gradings in respect of any candidate, the final decision for the selection in case of such a candidate may rest with the Chairman of the Selection Committee after discussions with other Members of the Selection Committee.”

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that the 1997 policy of AIIMS mandated that seniority should be based purely on merit, which was to be determined by the grades awarded by the Selection Committee members, including experts. They contended that since Dr. Bisoi received a higher grade from one of the experts, he should have been ranked higher than Dr. Shiv Kumar Choudhary.
• They relied on the Union government’s directive under Section 25 of the AIIMS Act, which required AIIMS to fix seniority based on the 1997 policy.
• They also pointed out that the Governing Body of AIIMS had initially found merit in Dr. Bisoi’s claim, as he was rated the best among the three Additional Professors in 2005.
• They also relied upon a communication of the then Director, Dr R C Deka, to the President of AIIMS stating that Dr. Bisoi has a claim as per the records 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 considered on merit as per Institute Body decision dated 15.01.97.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the selection process involved not just grading but also an overall assessment by the Selection Committee, which placed Dr. Shiv Kumar Choudhary higher in the merit list.
• They argued that the 1997 policy did not mandate that the final selection “will be made” on the basis of grading but rather “may be made”, indicating that the selection committee had discretion.
• They contended that the Selection Committee had considered the performance of the candidates, their records, and the opinion of the experts while preparing the merit list.
• They pointed out that AIIMS had consistently maintained the seniority of Dr. Shiv Kumar Choudhary over the years, and there was no reason to disturb the established order.
• The respondents also raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioners had an alternate remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issues that the court addressed were:

1. Whether the seniority of the petitioners should be determined based solely on the grading system of 1997 or the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee.
2. Whether the Selection Committee was bound by the expert opinions while preparing the merit list.
3. Whether the delay in approaching the Supreme Court should disentitle the petitioners from relief.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Supreme Court:

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the seniority of Dr. Shiv Kumar Choudhary.

Key Takeaways

• The seniority of faculty members at AIIMS is determined by the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee, not solely by the grading system.
• Expert opinions in selection committees are advisory and not binding, allowing the committee to consider other relevant factors.
• Delay in seeking legal remedies can disentitle a party from relief, emphasizing the importance of timely action.
• The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that stale claims cannot be resuscitated.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court. The Court simply dismissed the writ petition.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion of any specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the seniority of faculty members at AIIMS is determined by the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee, and expert opinions are advisory, not binding. The Supreme Court also reiterated the principle that a stale claim cannot be resuscitated. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of AIIMS’s 1997 policy and sets a precedent for similar cases involving selection and seniority disputes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Dr. Akshya Bisoi and Dr. Ujjwal Kumar Chowdhury, upholding the seniority of Dr. Shiv Kumar Choudhary at AIIMS. The court held that the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee, not just the grading system, determines seniority. The court also emphasized that expert opinions are advisory and that a delay of over 12 years in approaching the court disentitled the petitioners from relief. This judgment reinforces the importance of timely action and the discretion of selection committees in making final decisions.

Category

• Service Law
  • Seniority Dispute
  • AIIMS Act, 1956
  • Section 25
• Supreme Court Judgments
• Medical Law
• Administrative Law