Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the directorship of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), a premier autonomous institution. Dr. S.K. Kacker had been appointed Director on 15 October 1990 for a five-year tenure, which expired on 14 October 1995. Dr. L.M. Nath, Dean and Head of the Centre for Community Medicine, was the second senior most Professor. The Institute Body, the apex body of AIIMS, decided on 5 June 1995 not to extend Dr. Kacker's term and to initiate a fresh selection process, but that process was stayed by the High Court in another pending writ petition filed by Common Cause. Consequently, no regular Director was appointed before the tenure expired. On 15 October 1995, the President of the Institute, exercising powers under Rule 7(4) of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Rules, 1958, appointed Prof. Lalit Mohan Nath to look after the functions of Director for a period not exceeding six months or until a new Director was appointed. Dr. Nath assumed charge and functioned until 19 October 1995. Dr. Kacker filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3865 of 1995 in the Delhi High Court on 16 October 1995, seeking stay of the appointment order and the June 5 resolution, and seeking his own appointment as officiating Director. On 19 October 1995, a Division Bench of the High Court passed an ad interim order restraining implementation of the President's order and directing that Dr. Kacker shall continue to hold the office of Director until further orders. The core legal question was whether the High Court's interim interference was justified, particularly whether a tenure post holder could continue after expiry without extension and whether the President's appointment under Rule 7(4) was valid. The appellant contended that the High Court's interim order was untenable because the Director's tenure had ended by efflux of time and the President had lawful power to make an interim arrangement. The first respondent argued for continuation as Director and challenged the appointment, relying on his seniority and the pending selection process. The Supreme Court observed that the Director's post was a tenure post, and once the fixed term ended on 14 October 1995, the incumbent had no right to continue unless expressly extended or validly appointed under Rule 7(4). The Court interpreted Rule 7(4): the main part confers power on the President to appoint the senior most Professor, while the proviso empowers the Institute Body to appoint any Professor irrespective of seniority upon recording reasons. The Institute Body had not exercised the proviso and had already rejected Dr. Kacker's claim for reappointment. Although the 1974 seniority list showed Dr. Kacker as senior most and Dr. Nath as second senior most, the Court held that by necessary implication, Dr. Kacker could not be considered for interim appointment because of the conscious decision not to reappoint him except through selection. Therefore, the President was justified in appointing the next senior most professor, Dr. Nath. The Court also noted that the High Court could not exercise the power of the authorities under Rule 7(4). It made a special request to the High Court to deliver its judgment in the pending Common Cause writ petition expeditiously to end the stalemate. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's interim order, and restored the President's appointment of Dr. Nath as looking after the functions of Director. It clarified that Dr. Kacker could not continue as Director, and any other relief to which he might be entitled could be considered by the High Court according to the Rules. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Tenure Appointment - Expiry of Fixed Term - All India Institute of Medical Sciences Rules, 1958, Rule 7(3)/7(4) - A person appointed to a tenure post for a fixed period ceases to hold that office automatically upon expiry of the fixed term unless there is an express order extending the tenure; courts cannot by interim order create a right to continue in office not conferred by the rules. The Supreme Court held that the former Director's term expired on 14 October 1995 and he had no right to continue thereafter, so the High Court's direction that he should continue as Director was not justified. Held that tenure post lapses by efflux of time. B) Administrative Law - Interim Appointment Under Rule 7(4) - Scope of President's Power and Proviso - All India Institute of Medical Sciences Rules, 1958, Rule 7(4) - The main part of Rule 7(4) empowers the President to appoint the senior most Professor as interim Director, while the proviso allows the Institute Body to appoint any Professor irrespective of seniority only upon recording reasons. The Institute Body had not exercised the proviso and had consciously rejected reappointment of the outgoing Director, thereby impliedly rendering him ineligible for interim appointment; thus the President's appointment of the next senior most Professor was valid. Held that the President's order under Rule 7(4) main part was justified and the High Court's interference was erroneous.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Delhi High Court was justified in passing an interim order restraining the implementation of the President's order appointing the appellant as interim Director under Rule 7(4) and allowing the former Director to continue after expiry of his fixed tenure; and interpretation of Rule 7(4) of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Rules, 1958.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Delhi High Court. It held that the former Director's term as Director came to an end on 14 October 1995 and he had no right to continue thereafter unless expressly extended or validly appointed under Rule 7(4). The President's order appointing the appellant as interim Director under the main part of Rule 7(4) was justified because the Institute Body had not exercised the proviso and had rejected the former Director's reappointment. The Court made a special request to the High Court to deliver judgment expeditiously in the pending Common Cause writ petition. Any other relief to which the first respondent might be entitled could be considered by the High Court according to the Rules. No costs were awarded.
Law Points
- tenure post expires automatically by efflux of time
- no right to continue without express extension
- main part of Rule 7(4) empowers President to appoint senior most Professor
- proviso empowers Institute Body to appoint any Professor with recorded reasons
- rejection of reappointment implies ineligibility for interim appointment
- High Court cannot exercise statutory power under Rule 7(4)
- interim appointment valid
