Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard appeals against a common judgment of the High Court of Manipur that quashed an advertisement dated 16.08.2016 inviting applications for the post of Director of the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal. RIMS is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and its affairs are governed by its Memorandum of Association, Rules, Regulations, and Bye-Laws. The post of Director fell vacant on 14.09.2015. An earlier advertisement dated 24.06.2015 had been issued but was challenged in writ petitions, leading to an Office Memorandum dated 20.04.2016 enhancing the age of superannuation to 65 years. Subsequently, a fresh advertisement dated 16.08.2016 was issued prescribing an upper age limit of 62 years without relaxation. Three writ petitions were filed challenging this advertisement on different grounds: (1) non-providing of relaxation in upper age limit, (2) experience criteria not conforming to Medical Council of India regulations, and (3) that the vacancy should be filled based on rules existing on the date of vacancy. The High Court, despite no challenge to the recruitment rules themselves, went into the validity of the amended rules, held that amendments were not carried out as per the Society's Bye-Laws, and that the rules were not notified to the public, thereby invalidating the advertisement. The High Court also held that the experience criteria did not conform to MCI regulations. The Supreme Court, in appeal, noted that the High Court erred in examining the validity of the rules without any challenge, and that the objection regarding lack of challenge was wrongly brushed aside as technical. The Court further held that non-notification of rules cannot be a ground to invalidate the advertisement in the absence of any specific provision requiring notification. Regarding the experience criteria, the Court observed that the respondents had pleaded conformity with MCI regulations, and the High Court's finding to the contrary was not justified. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and directed that the selection process, which had already been completed pursuant to interim orders of the Supreme Court resulting in the appointment of Dr. Ahanthem Santa Singh as Director on 05.10.2018, shall be subject to the outcome of the appeals. The Court clarified that the appointment would be subject to the final result of the appeals, and any challenge to the appointment in pending writ petitions would be considered independently.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Challenge - High Court cannot go into validity of recruitment rules when no challenge is made to the rules in the writ petition; objection that rules are not under challenge cannot be brushed aside as technical (Paras 13). B) Service Law - Recruitment - Notification of Rules - Non-notification of amended recruitment rules to public at large does not invalidate the advertisement in the absence of any specific provision in the Bye-Laws or Rules requiring such notification (Paras 13). C) Medical Law - Qualifications - Experience Criteria - The experience criteria notified in the advertisement must conform to the Medical Council of India Regulations, but the High Court's finding that it did not conform was contrary to the respondents' plea that it was in accordance with the Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 (Paras 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the advertisement dated 16.08.2016 for the post of Director, RIMS, on grounds of invalid amendment of recruitment rules and non-conformity with MCI regulations, without a challenge to the rules themselves.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Impugned order of High Court set aside. Selection process and appointment of Dr. Ahanthem Santa Singh as Director, RIMS, made pursuant to interim orders of Supreme Court, shall be subject to outcome of these appeals. Any challenge to appointment in pending writ petitions to be considered independently.
Law Points
- Judicial review limited to grounds raised in writ petition
- Validity of rules cannot be examined without challenge
- Non-notification of rules not a ground to invalidate advertisement in absence of specific provision
- Experience criteria must conform to MCI regulations
