Summary
The Supreme Court refused to reopen AIIMS professors’ inter se seniority more than twelve years after selection. Repeated representations did not explain the delay. On merits, the revised 1997 selection policy did not require mathematical addition of grades: expert assessments were valuable inputs to be considered with the candidates’ performance and records, rather than binding scores. The Central Government’s direction required examination under that policy, not a predetermined seniority outcome. The writ petition was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether expert grades compelled revision of the selection ranking under the 1997 AIIMS policy.
- Whether repeated representations justified a twelve-year delay in challenging seniority.
Provisions considered
- Section 25, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956The government’s direction required consideration of seniority under the 1997 policy; it did not mandate that the first petitioner rank above the fourth respondent. (¶¶ 7, 13, 14, 15, 16)
Held
- The Court exercised its judgment to resolve the fully argued dispute under Article 32 instead of relegating the parties to tribunal proceedings, taking account of completed pleadings and the need to clarify the cited High Court ruling. It did not lay down a general exemption from the tribunal remedy for service disputes. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- A twelve-year delay in challenging the 2005 selection ranking was unexplained. Repeated representations, sympathetic departmental opinions and continuing hope of administrative relief did not justify disturbing seniority long maintained and repeatedly reaffirmed. (¶¶ 17, 18, 22, 23)
- The revised 1997 policy used “may be made” in place of “will be made” concerning selection on grades. It did not require mechanical summation of grades; the Chairperson could resolve a tie after discussion with the members. The committee must act objectively, consider expert views and weigh all relevant credentials and institutional interests. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22)
- Experts’ views are valuable and cannot simply be disregarded; they do not bind the selection committee. The minutes showed due consideration of performance, records and expert opinions, so the impugned ranking did not breach the policy. The government’s directive required examination, not a specified result favouring the petitioners. (¶¶ 16, 21, 22)
Result
Writ petition dismissed; longstanding seniority ranking left undisturbed. No costs.