Summary
The Supreme Court restored the advertisement for appointment of Director, RIMS, holding that the High Court wrongly examined recruitment rules whose validity had not been challenged. Non-publication did not invalidate the recruitment where the society’s governing instruments prescribed no such requirement. The experience objection overlooked the distinct criteria for an affiliated teaching hospital. Candidates could not demand inclusion of an age-relaxation clause as a matter of right.
Issues
- Whether recruitment rules could be invalidated in proceedings challenging only the advertisement.
- Whether non-publication, prescribed experience or absence of age relaxation justified quashing the advertisement.
Held
- The High Court erred in examining the validity of amended recruitment rules without a challenge to those rules. The authorities’ objection to that course could not be dismissed as merely technical. (¶ 13)
- Although a public institution should make its rules available, failure to notify these society rules to the public could not invalidate the advertisement when neither the bye-laws nor recruitment rules required such notification. The rules were not framed under Article 309. (¶ 13)
- The regulations distinguished experience for a director of a medical institution from that for a director or medical superintendent of an affiliated teaching hospital. In light of RIMS’s pleaded status as an affiliated teaching hospital, the advertised experience could not be held contrary to the regulations on the ground adopted by the High Court. (¶ 14)
- Eligibility criteria fall within the employer’s domain. Although an employer may provide relaxation when sufficient candidates are unavailable, candidates cannot claim a relaxation clause as of right; the direction to consider introducing one was unjustified. (¶ 14)
Result
Both sets of appeals allowed; the common High Court judgment dated 27 March 2017 set aside and the three writ petitions challenging the advertisement dismissed.