Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the service conditions of the appellant, a former Professor and Head of the ENT Department at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). The respondent is AIIMS and others. The appellant had been selected and appointed as Director of AIIMS for a five-year tenure, and after the tenure ended, he sought to revert to his parent post of Professor and Head of ENT Department until superannuation. The core question was whether the post of Director is a permanent tenure post and whether appointment to it terminated the appellant's lien on the Professor post, preventing reversion. The appellant was working as Professor and Head of the ENT Department when an advertisement dated June 29, 1990 was issued for one post of Director of AIIMS on regular basis. He applied, was selected by the Committee, and was appointed as Director with the concurrence of the Government of India. He assumed office on October 11, 1990 for a period of five years. His tenure ended on October 15, 1995. During his tenure as Director, one Dr. R. Ghosh was appointed as Professor and Head of the ENT Department. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court seeking reversion to the Professor post; the Division Bench by judgment dated July 19, 1996 in Writ Petition No.3865/95 rejected the claim, holding that on appointment as Director he ceased to be a Professor and could not revert. The appellant appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court. The main issues were (1) whether the appellant, on ceasing to be Director on October 15, 1995, could revert to and continue in the post of Professor of ENT Department till superannuation on July 31, 1998; and (2) whether the post of Director is a permanent post and what is its effect on lien. The appellant contended that the post of Director is not a permanent post; under AIIMS Regulation 22 there are only permanent and temporary posts, and a tenure post is neither. He relied on Regulation 30A and Fundamental Rule 14-A(a) to argue that he retained his lien on the Professor post. The respondents argued that the advertisement indicated the post of Director is permanent; appointment to that post is a selection post with probation, and upon permanent appointment as Director, the appellant lost his lien on the Professor post under Fundamental Rule 14-A(d). They also relied on Dr.L.P. v. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 526. The Supreme Court examined the Fundamental Rules. Rule 9(13) defines lien; Rule 9(30A) defines tenure post as a permanent post which an individual may not hold for more than a limited period; Rule 13(2) deals with retention of lien in parent department for two years; Rule 14-A(d) provides that a Government servant's lien on a post shall stand terminated on acquiring a lien on a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne. The Court held that the post of Director is a permanent tenure post, not in the same cadre as Professor. The Director is Head of AIIMS and independent of all departments. When the appellant was appointed substantively to the permanent post of Director, he acquired a lien on that post, which automatically terminated his lien on the previous permanent post of Professor under Rule 14-A(d). He could not hold two permanent posts simultaneously. The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the Director post was temporary, noting that the advertisement itself indicated probation for one year and tenure for five years, making it permanent. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment. It held that the appellant lost his lien on the post of Professor and Head of ENT Department upon appointment as Director and therefore could not revert to that post after the expiry of his tenure as Director.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment to Permanent Tenure Post - Nature of Post of Director, AIIMS - Fundamental Rules, Rule 9(13), Rule 9(30A) and AIIMS Regulations, Regulation 22, Regulation 30A - The question was whether the post of Director, AIIMS is a permanent post or temporary. The Court observed that the advertisement indicated probation for one year and that appointment is for a tenure of five years. Under Fundamental Rules, a tenure post is a permanent post which an individual may not hold for more than a limited period. Therefore, the post of Director was held to be a permanent tenure post, not merely temporary. Held that the appellant's contention that the post of Director is not permanent was rejected. B) Service Law - Lien and Reversion on Appointment to Permanent Post Outside Cadre - Termination of Lien - Fundamental Rules, Rule 14-A(d), Rule 13(2) - The appellant, a Professor in AIIMS, was selected and appointed as Director, a permanent tenure post outside the cadre of Professor. Under Fundamental Rule 14-A(d), a Government servant's lien on a post stands terminated on acquiring a lien on a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne. Since the Director post is independent and not in the same cadre as Professor, the appellant lost his lien on the Professor post when he became Director. Consequently, he could not revert to the Professor and Head of ENT Department after his tenure as Director ended. Held that the High Court's view was correct and the appeal was dismissed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether on expiry of five years' tenure as Director, the appellant was entitled to go back as a Professor and Head of the ENT Department till superannuation on July 31, 1998; whether the post of Director is a permanent post and what is its effect on the appellant's lien on the Professor post.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment. It held that the post of Director, AIIMS is a permanent tenure post; appointment to that post, which is outside the cadre of Professor, terminated the appellant's lien on the Professor post under Fundamental Rule 14-A(d). Consequently, the appellant could not revert to the post of Professor and Head of ENT Department after his tenure as Director ended.
Law Points
- The post of Director
- AIIMS is a permanent tenure post
- not merely temporary
- A Government servant appointed substantively to a permanent post outside his parent cadre acquires a lien on that post
- Fundamental Rule 14-A(d) terminates lien on the previous permanent post upon acquiring lien on a permanent post outside the cadre
- A Government servant cannot hold two permanent posts simultaneously
- There is no automatic right of reversion to a parent post after tenure appointment to an independent permanent post outside cadre
