New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has sought the National Medical Commission’s (NMC) opinion in a landmark case concerning the appointment of Heads of Departments (HoDs) in medical colleges. The court will examine whether HoD appointments should follow a seniority-based model or adopt a rotational policy, as contested in a dispute involving the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS).
Case Background
The issue arose when senior professors Dr. Anche Narayana Rao Dattatri and Dr. Rajendra Choudhary, HoDs of the Pharmacology and General Surgery departments at KIMS, challenged the institution’s introduction of a rotational HoD policy. They were originally appointed under the NMC’s Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022, which mandate seniority-based appointments for administrative posts such as HoDs.
In December 2023, KIMS adopted new bye-laws imposing a three-year rotational system for HoD roles. Under this policy, the petitioners were asked to vacate their positions, leading to their legal challenge.
Legal Proceedings
Initially, a single bench of the Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, upholding seniority-based appointments as stipulated by NMC regulations. However, a division bench overturned this decision, deeming the HoD role non-administrative and validating KIMS’ rotational policy. The petitioners then escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that the HoD role involves critical administrative duties like recruitment, curriculum planning, and departmental management, making seniority essential for its effective execution.
Supreme Court’s Intervention
A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal acknowledged the potential nationwide implications of the case and directed the NMC to clarify its stance. The Court highlighted the need to determine whether NMC’s Regulation 3.10, mandating seniority-based HoD appointments, overrides institutional bye-laws like KIMS’ rotational policy.
The petitioners also argued against the retrospective application of KIMS’ bye-laws, terming it arbitrary and unjust.
NMC’s Role
As the regulatory authority for medical education in India, the NMC’s input will be pivotal in resolving the matter. The Supreme Court has asked the NMC to address whether HoD appointments should prioritize seniority as an administrative criterion or allow institutions autonomy to implement rotation-based policies.
KIMS’ Defense
KIMS defended its rotational policy, stating that it fosters diversity of thought and innovation by enabling multiple professors to lead departments. The institution argued that this approach aligns with modern educational and administrative practices, promoting fresh perspectives and collaborative growth.
Key Legal Questions
The Supreme Court will address the following issues:
- Nature of the HoD Role: Is it an administrative post requiring seniority-based appointments, or can it be treated as a primarily academic role suitable for rotational policies?
- Regulation vs. Institutional Autonomy: Do NMC regulations supersede institutional bye-laws?
- Validity of Retrospective Application: Can KIMS’ rotational policy be applied retroactively to disrupt the petitioners’ tenure?
Next Steps
The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for December 4, 2024. The NMC’s response will play a crucial role in shaping the verdict, which could set a precedent for HoD appointments in medical colleges across India.
This case underscores the ongoing debate between institutional autonomy and adherence to national regulatory frameworks, with significant implications for the governance of medical institutions nationwide.
