New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed the inclusion of the National Medical Commission (NMC) as a party in a plea concerning the appointment of Heads of Departments (HoDs) in medical colleges. This follows a challenge to a Karnataka High Court decision, which held that the HoD position is not an administrative role and is not governed by NMC regulations on administrative posts.
A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal noted that the matter could have nationwide implications.
“In view of the facts, the learned counsel for the parties submitted that the National Medical Commission (NMC) is a necessary party as the issue could have a pan-India impact. NMC is to be joined as a party today. The name of Mr. Prateek Bhatia, learned Standing Counsel for the NMC, should be reflected in the Cause List. He may seek instructions and appear on the next date of listing,” the Court stated. The hearing is scheduled for December 4, 2024.
Case Background
The petitioners, senior professors at Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubbali (KIMS), served as HoDs in the departments of Pharmacology and General Surgery, respectively. Their appointments were based on inter se seniority, as per Regulation 3.10 of the Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022, framed under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
Regulation 3.10 mandates that administrative posts in government institutions be filled based on vertical seniority. However, on December 22, 2023, KIMS introduced new bye-laws instituting a three-year rotation policy for HoD appointments. The petitioners were subsequently directed to relinquish their positions, prompting them to challenge the bye-laws as contrary to statutory regulations.
A single judge of the Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench) ruled in favor of the petitioners on February 23, 2024, holding that:
- The HoD post is an administrative position requiring adherence to seniority-based appointments under Regulation 3.10.
- KIMS bye-laws cannot override statutory regulations.
However, a Division Bench of the High Court overturned this decision on March 21, 2024, ruling that the HoD post is not administrative and Regulation 3.10 does not apply. The bench upheld the rotation policy, stating that it promotes diversity of thought and innovation. This decision is now under challenge before the Supreme Court.
Key Issues
- Did the High Court err in categorizing HoD posts as non-administrative?
- Does Regulation 3.10, mandating seniority-based appointments, take precedence over KIMS bye-laws?
- Is the retrospective application of the new bye-laws legally valid?
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners contend that the HoD role involves significant administrative responsibilities, such as recruitment, curriculum planning, practical training, supervising admissions, and addressing complaints. These tasks go beyond teaching, making it clear that the HoD position is administrative.
The plea argues, “To say the HoD is not an administrative post is akin to claiming that the Chief Justice of India does not perform administrative functions. The High Court’s observation that HoD duties are incidental to teaching is unsustainable in law.”
The petition further asserts that the rotation policy violates statutory provisions and disrupts departmental hierarchy. It highlights that a similar clause in the draft NMC regulations was removed after stakeholder feedback. The retrospective application of the bye-laws to remove the petitioners is also termed arbitrary and legally untenable.