Supreme Court Upholds RIMS Director Appointment Rules: Dr. Thingujam Achouba Singh vs. Dr. H. Nabachandra Singh (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 17 April 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 344

Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a High Court invalidate recruitment rules when they haven’t been directly challenged by the petitioners? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent case concerning the appointment of the Director at the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal. The court overturned a High Court decision that had quashed the appointment process, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and the limits of judicial intervention in administrative matters. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy, with Justice R. Subhash Reddy authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal, is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It operates as a major public healthcare institution in Northeast India. The post of Director at RIMS became vacant on 14 September 2015, after which the position was temporarily filled by senior professors on an in-charge basis.

Initially, an advertisement was issued on 24 June 2015 by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, to fill the Director’s post through direct recruitment. The advertisement specified an upper age limit of 50 years, with relaxations for government servants and qualified candidates, and a retirement age of 62 years.

Several individuals, including the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 676 of 2016, made representations to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to increase the superannuation age from 62 to 65 years. These petitioners, who were either nearing or had already reached 62 years of age, sought to challenge the advertisement by filing a writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 617 of 2015). They requested the High Court to quash the advertisement and direct the respondents to fill the post by fixing the upper age limit at 60 years, as per Clause 12 of the RIMS Rules and Regulations. This writ petition was later withdrawn after an Office Memorandum dated 20 April 2016, increased the superannuation age to 65 years.

Subsequently, a fresh advertisement was issued on 16 August 2016, setting the upper age limit at 62 years without any relaxation for government servants or RIMS officers. This new advertisement led to the filing of three separate writ petitions before the High Court of Manipur.

W.P.(C) No. 676 of 2016 challenged the advertisement for not providing relaxation in the upper age limit. W.P.(C) No. 722 of 2016 contested the experience criteria, arguing that it did not align with the Medical Council of India’s (MCI) guidelines. W.P.(C) No. 766 of 2016 argued that the rules applicable at the time the vacancy arose (14 September 2015) should be followed, not the amended rules. The petitioners in all three writ petitions sought the quashing of the advertisement dated 16.08.2016.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Manipur heard three writ petitions (W.P.(C) No. 676 of 2016, W.P.(C) No. 722 of 2016, and W.P.(C) No. 766 of 2016) together. The primary challenge in all three petitions was to the advertisement dated 16 August 2016, which invited applications for the post of Director at RIMS, Imphal.

The High Court, despite the absence of a direct challenge to the recruitment rules, examined the validity of these rules. It concluded that the rules were not amended following the Society’s prescribed procedures. The High Court also noted that the amended rules were not publicly notified and that the experience criteria in the advertisement did not align with the Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulations. Consequently, the High Court quashed the advertisement and directed the competent authority to consider providing relaxation in the upper age limit or qualification as sought by the petitioners.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following:

✓ The Societies Registration Act, 1860, under which RIMS is registered.

✓ The Memorandum of Association (MOA), Rules, Regulations, and Bye-Laws of RIMS, which govern the institution’s affairs.

✓ The “Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998” (as amended), issued by the Medical Council of India (MCI), which prescribes qualifications for teaching positions in medical institutions.

The High Court also considered the principle that rules should be notified to the public, although the Supreme Court noted that there was no specific requirement for such notification in the RIMS Bye-Laws or the recruitment rules.

Arguments

Arguments by the Petitioners:

• W.P.(C) No. 676 of 2016: The petitioners argued that the advertisement dated 16 August 2016, was illegal because it did not provide any relaxation in the upper age limit. They sought a direction to allow them to participate in the selection process by providing age relaxation.
• W.P.(C) No. 722 of 2016: The petitioner contended that the experience criteria in the advertisement was contrary to the Medical Council of India (MCI) guidelines. They argued that the advertisement should have specified a minimum of ten years teaching experience as Professor/Associate Professor/Reader, with at least five years as a professor in a department.
• W.P.(C) No. 766 of 2016: The petitioner argued that the rules existing on the date of the vacancy (14 September 2015) should apply, not the amended rules. They also claimed that the amendments were not made following the due procedure under the RIMS Society’s Rules and Bye-Laws.

Arguments by the Respondents (RIMS and Union of India):

• The respondents argued that the High Court should not have examined the validity of the recruitment rules since they were not directly challenged in the writ petitions. They contended that the challenge was only to the advertisement dated 16 August 2016.
• The respondents stated that the rules were amended following the prescribed procedures and that the amendments were approved by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare.
• They argued that there was no specific provision in the RIMS Bye-Laws requiring public notification of the amended rules.
• The respondents contended that the experience criteria in the advertisement dated 16 August 2016, was consistent with the “Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998” issued by the MCI. They clarified that RIMS is an affiliated teaching hospital, and the relevant experience requirement for the Director/Medical Superintendent of such an institution was ten years of experience.
• They argued that the relaxation of the upper age limit is at the discretion of the employer and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had erred by going into the validity of the recruitment rules when there was no direct challenge to the same in the writ petitions.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

✓ Whether the High Court was justified in examining the validity of the recruitment rules when the writ petitions only challenged the advertisement dated 16 August 2016.

✓ Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the amended rules were invalid due to lack of public notification.

✓ Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the experience criteria in the advertisement was inconsistent with the MCI Regulations.

✓ Whether the High Court could direct the competent authority to consider providing relaxation in the upper age limit.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

✓ “Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998” (as amended) issued by the Medical Council of India (MCI). The Court examined these regulations to determine the appropriate experience criteria for the post of Director at RIMS. The Court noted that the regulations differentiate between the qualifications for a Director of a medical institution and a Director/Medical Superintendent of an affiliated teaching hospital. The Court found that RIMS, being an affiliated teaching hospital, was correctly following the MCI regulations applicable to such institutions.

✓ The Court also considered the Memorandum of Association (MOA), Rules, Regulations, and Bye-Laws of RIMS to determine whether there was a requirement for public notification of amended rules. The Court concluded that there was no such requirement.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ “Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998” [CITATION] – The Court followed the MCI regulations and clarified that the experience criteria was consistent with the regulations applicable to affiliated teaching hospitals like RIMS.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

✓ Procedural Propriety: The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal procedures. It noted that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by examining the validity of the recruitment rules when they were not directly challenged in the writ petitions. This procedural aspect weighed heavily on the Court’s decision.

✓ Interpretation of Regulations: The Court carefully interpreted the MCI regulations and concluded that the experience criteria in the advertisement was consistent with the regulations applicable to affiliated teaching hospitals. This interpretation was crucial in rejecting the petitioners’ claim that the advertisement was contrary to the MCI guidelines.

✓ Discretion of the Employer: The Court upheld the principle that the relaxation of the upper age limit is at the discretion of the employer and cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the petitioners. This principle underscored the employer’s autonomy in setting eligibility criteria.

✓ Lack of Specific Requirements: The Court noted that there was no specific requirement in the RIMS Bye-Laws or recruitment rules for public notification of the amended rules. This lack of a specific requirement played a significant role in the Court’s decision to reject the High Court’s finding on this issue.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the common judgment and order dated 27 March 2017, passed by the High Court of Manipur at Imphal. Consequently, the writ petitions filed before the High Court were dismissed.

The Court held that the High Court had erred in going into the validity of the recruitment rules when there was no direct challenge to the same in the writ petitions. The Court also found that the High Court’s conclusion that the amended rules were invalid due to lack of public notification was incorrect, as there was no such requirement in the RIMS Bye-Laws or recruitment rules. Additionally, the Court held that the experience criteria in the advertisement was consistent with the MCI regulations applicable to affiliated teaching hospitals.

The Supreme Court also emphasized that the relaxation of the upper age limit is at the discretion of the employer and cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the petitioners.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

✓ The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by examining the validity of the recruitment rules when they were not directly challenged.

✓ There was no requirement for public notification of the amended rules in the RIMS Bye-Laws or recruitment rules.

✓ The experience criteria in the advertisement was consistent with the MCI regulations applicable to affiliated teaching hospitals.

✓ The relaxation of the upper age limit is at the discretion of the employer and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“We are of the view that the High Court has committed, an error in going into the validity of the Rules, in absence of any challenge to 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.”

“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.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Implications for Future Cases: This judgment reinforces the principle that courts should not interfere with administrative decisions unless there is a clear violation of law or procedure. It also clarifies that courts should not examine the validity of rules when they are not directly challenged by the parties. Additionally, it underscores the employer’s discretion in setting eligibility criteria and the limits of judicial intervention in such matters.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Courts should not examine the validity of rules when they are not directly challenged by the parties.
• ✓ Public notification of amended rules is not required unless specifically mandated by the relevant rules or bye-laws.
• ✓ The employer has the discretion to set eligibility criteria, including the relaxation of the upper age limit.
• ✓ The experience criteria for the Director of an affiliated teaching hospital should be in accordance with the MCI regulations applicable to such institutions.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than setting aside the High Court’s judgment and dismissing the writ petitions.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court should not have examined the validity of the recruitment rules when they were not directly challenged in the writ petitions. The Supreme Court clarified the limits of judicial intervention in administrative matters and upheld the employer’s discretion in setting eligibility criteria. This judgment reinforces the principle of procedural propriety and the importance of adhering to established legal procedures.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Thingujam Achouba Singh & Ors. vs. Dr. H. Nabachandra Singh & Ors. sets aside the High Court’s order, which had quashed the advertisement for the post of Director at RIMS, Imphal. The Supreme Court emphasized that courts should not interfere with administrative decisions unless there is a clear violation of law or procedure, and that the employer has the discretion to set eligibility criteria. This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural propriety and the limits of judicial intervention in administrative matters.