2002 (2) TMI 1326 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appellant's appointment as Lecturer in 1986.
2. Legitimacy of the subsequent corrigendum converting the temporary post to a permanent one.
3. Appropriateness of the appellant's appointment as Assistant Professor in 1990.
4. Respondent No. 1's locus standi and claims regarding the appointment process.
5. Judicial scrutiny of educational institutions' actions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the appellant's appointment as Lecturer in 1986:
The appellant's appointment as Lecturer in 1986 was not in accordance with the advertisement issued on 28th September 1986. The post of Lecturer was not advertised, and the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria for the advertised post of Assistant Professor (Psychiatric Social Work). The Selection Committee's power to recommend a candidate for a lower post did not extend to creating a new, unadvertised post. The High Court found that the appellant's appointment was a "fraud on the power of NIMHANS" and that undue interest had been taken in his appointment.

2. Legitimacy of the subsequent corrigendum converting the temporary post to a permanent one:
The corrigendum issued on 21st April 1987, which converted the appellant's temporary tenure appointment to a permanent one, was also found to be invalid. The advertisement had stated that the posts were temporary with a possibility of becoming permanent after three years. Changing the nature of the post to permanent from its inception without re-advertising it was deemed unfair and deprived other potential candidates of the opportunity to apply. The corrigendum was based on a misinterpretation of the terms under which the ICMR Centre was set up, and there was no obligation on NIMHANS to absorb the Centre's employees.

3. Appropriateness of the appellant's appointment as Assistant Professor in 1990:
The appellant's appointment as Assistant Professor in 1990 was challenged by respondent No. 1, who argued that it was made through a backdoor method, bypassing the Recruitment Rules of NIMHANS. The High Court upheld this challenge, finding that the appellant's initial appointment as Lecturer was irregular and that his subsequent absorption into NIMHANS as Assistant Professor was vitiated by bias and fraud. The High Court directed that the post of Assistant Professor be filled in accordance with the 1989 advertisement, but this direction was later modified by the Supreme Court, which ordered a fresh advertisement for the vacancy.

4. Respondent No. 1's locus standi and claims regarding the appointment process:
Respondent No. 1 had the locus standi to challenge the appellant's appointment as Assistant Professor, as she was qualified and had applied for the post. Her basic grievance was that the appellant's appointment was made contrary to the Recruitment Rules and without completing the process initiated by the 1989 advertisement. The High Court found that the respondent No. 1's challenge was bona fide and timely, as it was filed in the same year as the appellant's appointment as Assistant Professor.

5. Judicial scrutiny of educational institutions' actions:
The Supreme Court emphasized that actions of educational institutions, however reputed, are not immune from judicial scrutiny. To preserve their high reputation, such institutions must avoid any semblance of arbitrariness or extraneous considerations. The Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, noting that NIMHANS' actions in appointing the appellant were arbitrary and biased.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision but modifying it to allow the appellant's actual experience as Assistant Professor to be considered if he applies for the post in future advertisements. The Court ordered that a fresh advertisement be issued to fill the vacancy created by the setting aside of the appellant's appointment, in accordance with NIMHANS' Cadre and Recruitment Rules. The appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs.