Dr Skand Sinha vs HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE on 27 October 2026

O R D E R

r. Rajinder Kashyap, Mem f the present MA, the applic the accompanying OA, as th are equally aggrieved by th which is under challenge in t he reasons stated in the pre om the learned counsel app MA is allowed. Accord join together in the accompa evance of the applicants is No.4 as Director, Sports Inj Safdarjung Hospital, New 19-CHS.IV/E-3198366 dated 3 spondent Nos. 1 and 2, is ille nd 16 of the Constitution of Indi ing the instant OA under Sec t, 1985, the applicants are seeki for the records of the resp taining to the selection process ein and issuance of the 11/01/2019-CHS.IV/E-3198366 nexure-A-1Impugned); d and declare that appointment ector, Sports Injury Centre, VMM w Delhi by the respondentsNo 11/01/2019-CHS.IV/E-3198366 nexure-A-1 Impugned) as illega io being violative of Articles 14 a ia and consequently quash the sa mber (A): ants seek permission to join heir grievances are identical he impugned order dated the OA. esent MA and in view of no pearing for the respondents, dingly, the applicants are anying OA. s that the appointment of jury Centre (in short ‘SIC’), Delhi, vide order No.A- 31.10.2023 (Annexure A-1), egal, arbitrary and violative of ia. ction 19 of the Administrative ing the following reliefs: pondents No.1 to 3herein s of the respondent No.4 impugned order No.A- dated 31.10.2023 t of the respondentNo.4 as MCA, Safdarjung Hospital, o.1 & 2 vide order No.A- dated 31.10.2023 al, arbitrary and void-ab- nd 16 of the Constitution of me;

l d

e f

f e by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

(iii) Furt mak recr of In

(iv) Awa agai

(v) may and

3. Since t 31.10.2023 by namely, Dr. D Safdarjung Ho for seeking c vide Order da

4. The fact Grade-II (Or 11.06.2007 an short ‘SAG’), 05.02.2020. (Assistant Pro UPSC on 21. applicants are 2B, respective under Respon 4.1 Accordi No charge me alleged misco no adverse A seniority list i are placed at ther hold and declare that the ke such appointment/recruitmen ruitment rules and extant policy d ndia. ard cost of the litigation in fav inst the Respondents. y also pass any further order/ord proper to meet the ends of justice the applicants are challengin y filing the present OA vide Deepak Joshi had been appoin ospital, New Delhi, they have al ondonation of delay, which ated 24.09.2026. ts in brief are that applicant No rthopaedics) through direct r nd was promoted to the Sen , Level 14 of the Pay Matr Applicant No. 2 was appo ofessor, Teaching Sub-Cadre 08.2007 and was promoted t e presently discharging their du ely, at the SIC, VMMC and Saf ndent No. 3. ing to the applicants, their serv emorandum has been issued a onduct, no criminal prosecution APAR has ever been commu issued by Respondents Nos. 1 Serial Nos. 377 and 408, resp respondents No. 1 &2 will nt strictly in terms of the decision of the Government vour of the Applicants and ders as may be deemed just e." ng the aforesaid order dated which the respondent No.4, nted as Director, SIC, VMMCA, lso filed the MA No.1662/2026 was allowed by this Tribunal o.1 was appointed as Specialist recruitment by the UPSC on nior Administrative Grade (in rix under the 7th CPC, on inted as Specialist Grade-II in Orthopaedics) through the to SAG on 06.03.2020. Both uties as Heads of Units 2A and fdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, rvice records are unblemished. against either of them for any n is pending against them, and unicated to them. As per the and 2, Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 pectively. Whereas, respondent d

l t n n n

e h d

y d e

t by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

No.4 was ap 17.09.2008 a at Serial No. that Respond SAG grade. 4.2 The app Head of De Principal, Dea Safdarjung H Hardinge Me selection proc upon the pol earlier Offic 13.09.2024 ( 31.10.2025 (A the procedur Standing Sele 4.3 The ap Respondent N powers and p issued and Respondent N order dated 3 4.4 Accordi was made arb other similar approach in ppointed as Specialist Grad nd was promoted to SAG on 1 505 of the seniority list. The dent No.4 is junior to both of th plicants averred that appointm epartment (HoD), Addition an and Director in Central Go Hospital, Dr. Ram Manohar edical College and Hospital, ar cess involving public advertise licy circular/SOP dated 11.04 ce Memorandum dated 28 (Annexure A-3), and circu Annexure A-4 colly), which, re for selection of HoDs, inc ection Committee and selection pplicants averred that the p No.3, is akin to that of HoD privileges. They alleged that no prescribed selection pro No.4 was appointed as Direc 1.10.2023 (Annexure A-1). ing to the applicants, the appo bitrarily, without considering th rly situated officers, and amo disregard of the applicable p de-II through the UPSC on 17.09.2021. His name appears applicants, therefore, contend hem in service as well as in the ments to senior posts, such as nal Medical Superintendent, overnment hospitals, including r Lohia Hospital and Lady re ordinarily made through a ment. In this regard, they rely 4.2023 (Annexure A-2), the .12.2018, the policy dated ulars dated 02.12.2023 and , according to them, prescribe cluding the constitution of a n through due process. post of Director, SIC, under D and carries corresponding no public advertisement was cedure was followed before ctor, SIC, vide the impugned ointment of Respondent No. 4 he claims of the applicants and ounted to a pick-and-choose policy, recruitment rules and n

d e s

g y a y e d d e a r g

e d d e d Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

constitutional India. They a pursuant to an 4.5 The ap appointment, (Annexure A seeking app representatio the alleged v principles of Tribunal by th

5. Pursuan no.1 to 3 as w claim of the a

6. Shri R. submitted the by the respon Articles 14 & 31.10.2023 (A on account o respondents N 6.1 Learned right under A of their cand constitutional action of the been much j l guarantees under Articles 14 accordingly allege that Respon n illegal and arbitrary appointm pplicants further stated th , they submitted represen A-5) to Respondent No.1, cha propriate action. However, ns were not considered in acco violation of the applicable s fairness and equality, the app his OA seeking the reliefs as qu nt to notice issued by this Trib well as private respondent no.4 f pplicant to which the applicant .V. Sinha, learned counsel a e impugned order dated 31.10.2 ndents No.1 & 2 is per-se arb 16 of the Constitution of India Annexure-A-1) of appointme of legal bias and pick and ch No.1 & 2. d counsel argued that the app Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitut didature for the higher post l right of consideration has be respondents No.1 & 2. Furth junior to the applicants, as

4 and 16 of the Constitution of ndent No.4 is holding the post ment. hat, upon learning of the ntations dated 17.02.2026 allenging the appointment and according to them, the ordance with law. Aggrieved by selection procedure and the plicants have approached this uoted above. bunal, the official respondents filed their replies opposing the ts have filed their rejoinders. appearing for the applicants 2023 (Annexure-A-1) passed bitrary, illegal and violative of a, as the impugned order dated ent of the respondent No.4 is choose policy adopted by the plicants have got fundamental tion of India for consideration t of Director, SIC and such een infringed by the arbitrary her, the respondent No.4 has would be evident from the f t e

d e y e

s e s d f d s e l n h y

e by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

eligibility list of the applic whereas as re 6.2 Learned not follow ev upon them in 6.3 Learned respondent N justice and go utter disregar them in as mu eligible candi candidates, in No.4 herein consideration following the the responden initio and no also against th 6.4 Learned power of app 2, the applica No.4 and such the applicants 6.5 Learned of respondent and is nothing circulated by the respondent N cants No.1 & 2 appear therei espondent no.4 at serial No.505 d counsel also submitted that ven their own OM/SOP dated n law. d counsel thus argued tha No.4 is violative of the settled ood conscience at the end of th rd and colourable exercise of th uch as no advertisement was m idates to participate in the s ncluding the applicants, who and have been duly qualifi n for the said post and no due procedure of selection. T nt No.4 to the post in question ot only against the fundament he public interest. d counsel submitted that in vie ointment and recruitment vest ants are compelled to work und h an omission of the responden s. d counsel further submitted th t No.4 as Director, SIC is a res g but mere back door entry of t

No.1 in as much as the names in at serial No.377 and 408

5. the respondents No.1 & 2 did 11.04.2023, which is binding at the appointment of the d principle of law of fairness, he respondents No.1 & 2 and in heir executive powers vested in made calling applications from selection process, no eligible are senior to the respondent ied, eligible and entitled for merit list was notified after Therefore, the appointment of n is per-se illegal and void-ab- tal right of the applicants but ew of the arbitrary exercise of ted in the respondents No.1 & der their junior i.e., respondent nts No.1 & 2 is humiliating for hat the action of appointment sult of process unknown to law the respondent No.4. s

d g e

n n m e t r r f - t f & t r t w by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

6.6 Lastly, l no.4 is requir to initiate pr following the

7. Ms. Upa 1 to 3 by refer Injury Unit (A a full-fledged letter dated 2 2010. The Cen 7.1 Learned Senior Orthop Non-Teaching heading the U the SIC. Subse and Director, office order d SIC, against Grade-I, and D Dr. Deepak C Dr. Ram Ma 19.06.2018, w officer of the N to Safdarjung Dr. R.K. Arya Director Profe Institute of O additional cha learned counsel prayed that th red to be set aside and the resp rocess for appointment to th due process. asana Bakshi, Learned counsel ring to the reply filed on their b Arthroscopy Disorder) of Safdar SIC vide Ministry of Health a 22.02.2008, in view of the en ntre became functional in Septem d counsel further submitted pedic Surgeon, an officer of th g Sub-cadre of the Central He Unit since its inception and was equently, he was re-designated SIC, vide MoHFW order dated ated 18.12.2009, specialty-wise which Dr. Deepak Chaudhary Dr. Deepak Joshi, Specialist Gr Chaudhary was transferred from nohar Lohia Hospital (in sho while Dr. R.K. Arya, Consultan Non-Teaching Sub-cadre of CH Hospital as Director, SIC. Sub to RMLH vide office order date essor (Orthopedics) and Head of Orthopedics, Safdarjung Hosp arge of Director, SIC.

he appointment of respondent pondent no.1 and 2 be directed he post of Director, SIC by appearing for Respondent Nos. behalf submitted that the Sports rjung Hospital was upgraded to and Family Welfare (MoHFW) nsuing Commonwealth Games, mber 2010. that Dr. Deepak Chaudhary, he SAG level belonging to the ealth Service (CHS), had been s initially appointed as Head of d as Senior Orthopedic Surgeon d 10.08.2009. Thereafter, vide e posts were sanctioned for the y, Dr. Naval Bhatia, Specialist rade-II, continued to be posted. m SIC, Safdarjung Hospital, to ort ‘RMLH’) vide order dated nt (Orthopedics), an SAG-level S, was transferred from RMLH sequently, upon the transfer of ed 23.12.2022, Dr. L.G. Krishna, f Department/Director, Central pital, was entrusted with the t d y

s o

e n f n e e t

o d l

f

l e by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

7.2 With re that a meetin Secretary, was appointment a officers belon CHS in the O Hospital, Lad age, was cons relevant time Committee. H overall assessm 7.3 Learned the candidates Deepak Joshi officer of the N SIC, Safdarju appointment scheduled to c 7.4 Learned 11.04.2023, pr to the selecti appointments be distinct fro said OM was n 7.5 Learned appoint the s appointment i egard to the selection in questi ng of the Screening Committe s held on 30.08.2023 to recom as Director, SIC. For this purpos nging to both the Teaching and rthopedics specialty, posted at dy Hardinge Medical College an idered. The applicants, being el e, were also included in the However, they were not selected ment of their suitability for the p d counsel contended that, after s and other relevant factors, the i (respondent No.4), Consultan Non-Teaching Sub-cadre of CH ung Hospital, for a tenure of was notified vide order dated conclude on 31.10.2026. d counsel also contended that t rescribing the Standard Operati ion of Heads of Departments to the post of Director. The pos om that of an HoD; hence, the p not applicable to the selection in d counsel argued that there is senior-most officer as Directo is required to be made on the ion, learned counsel submitted ee, chaired by the Additional mmend a suitable candidate for se, a combined list of SAG-level d Non-Teaching Sub-cadres of Safdarjung Hospital, Dr. RML nd SIC, and below 62 years of ligible SAG-level officers at the e list and considered by the on the basis of the Committee's post. r considering the suitability of e Committee recommended Dr. nt (Orthopedics), an SAG-level S, for appointment as Director, three years. Accordingly, his d 31.10.2023, with the tenure the Office Memorandum dated ing Procedure (SOP), pertained s (HoDs) and did not govern st of Director, SIC, was stated to procedure prescribed under the n question. no mandatory requirement to r of an Institute. Rather, the basis of the candidate's overall d l r l f L f e e

f

s e d d n o e o e l by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

suitability for Accordingly, t was defended candidates an applicants, de interfere with 7.6 Lastly, dismissed by t

8. Learned Joshi pursue thereafter obt was appointed Institute of O appointed as a 8.1 Learned Injury Unit, C submitted a p upgrading the into a full-fled was necessita attending the manpower and 8.2 Learned at Annexure Officer and C proposal reads r the post, assessed by the co the recommendation of Dr. De d as having been made after du d their respective suitability, an espite their eligibility, was sta the selection process. learned counsel submitted th this Tribunal. d counsel for Respondent No. d his M.B.B.S. from Maulan tained his M.S. in Orthopaedics d as a Research Associate in t rthopaedics (CIO), from 2004 a Contract Specialist in the said d counsel also submitted that, a CIO, was headed by Dr. Deep proposal to the Ministry of H e existing Sports Injury Unit (Ar dged Sports Injury Centre at Saf ated by the substantial increa Unit and the consequent nee d specialised facilities. d counsel drew attention to Cla e-A, which identified Dr. Dee Chief Executive for the projec s as under:

mpetent Selection Committee. eepak Joshi (respondent No.4) ue consideration of the eligible nd the mere non-selection of the ated to furnish no ground to hat instant OA deserves to be 4 submitted that Dr. Deepak na Azad Medical College and s from Safdarjung Hospital. He the Sports Injury Unit, Central to 2006 and was subsequently Unit in October 2006. at the relevant time, the Sports pak Chaudhary, who, in 2007, Health and Family Welfare for rthroscopy and Joint Disorder) fdarjung Hospital. The proposal se in the number of patients ed for enhanced infrastructure, use 9 of the aforesaid proposal epak Chaudhary as the Nodal ct. The relevant extract of the

e e o e k d e l y s

r

l s

l l e by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

“9. Whethe appointed implemen The noda Surgeon a been post Arthrosco successive been man contribute Safdarjan having pe faculty m the field o and has b 1999 for a USA. He w Fellowship Chaudhar Associatio of arthro from over Afghanist field. H Arthrosco and is to superann He wil posted ag & Sports specialist this cente orthopedi proposal The cent of Ortho Superint (Two OT be done 8.3 Learned the Ministry v Ministry's app issued by the Unit into a fu Disorder). The “Ministry 28015/24 upgradat disorder) Joint diso er Nodal Officer (Chief Executiv d? If yes, give details about the nting such projects, number of yea l officer would be Dr. Deepak Ch and Incharge of Arthroscopy & ted against one of the two posts opy & Sports injury clinic and as p e Medical Superintendents and naging the Clinic ever since its ed significantly for the develop ng Hospital. He has vast experienc erformed more than 5000 proced member for various International a of Arthroscopy. He has been speci been awarded the WHO fellowship a period of 6 weeks for advanced was also awarded the Indian Orth ip in this field in 2000 in USA. Th ry is the only center approved on and the Indian Arthroscopy So scopy and sports injury where r the country and neighboring cou tan) visit to learn and improve th He has done all the spade work opy & Sports Injury Unit at Cent otally dedicated to this specialty uation will be in Oct. 2021. ll be assisted by Dr Naval Bhatia t gainst the second post of Orthoped injury clinic. Dr Deepak Joshi pr in Sports injury unit shall be the o er and will be subsequently adj ic surgeon on its creation as pr and subject to UPSC selection. ter shall function independen opedics and shall report d tendent. Further strengtheni T and Wards/ Beds), manpow as per the requirements....” d counsel also submitted that vide letter dated 22.02.2008 (A proval, an Office Order dated 24 hospital administration, upgra ull-fledged Centre for Sports I e relevant portion of the said Of y of Health and Family we 42/2007-H dated 22nd Febru tion of the existing Sports injury u to a full fledged centre for Spor order).

ve for the project has been e status, past experience in ars for superannuation etc. audhary, Senior Orthopedic Sports Injury Unit. He has s of Orthopedic surgeon for per the recommendations of Directors/HODS CIO, has inception in 1997 and has pment of this specialty in ce in the field of Arthroscopy dure till date. He has been a and National conferences in ially trained in this specialty p by Government of India in d training in Arthroscopy in hopedic Association Foreign The center under Dr. Deepak by the Indian Orthopedic ociety for training in the field young orthopedic surgeons untries, (Nepal, Bangladesh, heir skills in this specialized k so far for setting up of tral Institute of Orthopedics for the past 10 years. His the other orthopedic surgeon dics surgeon of Arthroscopy resently working as contract other member of the team of djusted against the post of roposed in the present SFC nt of the Central Institute directly to the Medical ing of the infrastructure wer and equipment shall t the proposal was approved by Annexure-C). Pursuant to the 4.05.2008 (Annexure-D) was ading the existing Sports Injury Injury (Arthroscopy and Joint ffice Order reads as under: elfare vide letter no. Z- uary, has approved unit (Arthroscopy and Joint rts Injury (Arthroscopy and y e

y t Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

The Centr function Superinte provide c and other Dr. Deepa the Head specialist the two sa Dr. Deep centre. Dr. Deep ordinate v This issue Superinte 8.4 Learned an Orthopaed following his ‘UPSC’), and h 8.5 Learned ordinary Dep Gynaecology, disciplines. A Medicine, Ph Anaesthesiolo recruited direc general hospit 8.6 Learned Deputy Direct the Deputy Di the administra submitted tha Safdarjung Ho of Departmen re for Sports Injury (Arthroscop as a full fledged department d endent, Safdarjung hospital with comprehensive & specialized trea r joint disorders under one roof. ak Chaudhury, Senior Orthopaed d of this Centre. Dr. Naval Bh will be the second Orthopaedic su anctioned posts of specialists for th ak Joshi (contract specialist) wi ak Chaudhury and Dr. Naval B various proposals related to the de es with the approval of Addl D endent.” d counsel contended that Dr. D dic Surgeon in the Sports I selection by the Union Public has continued to serve in the Cen d counsel submitted that the partment of Safdarjung Hosp but is a specialised Centre of E Apart from Orthopaedic Surge ysical Medicine and Rehabilit ogy. The SIC has its own Gr ctly for the SIC through a tender tal administration. d counsel further contended th tor of Administration since its i irector of Administration of Safd ation of the hospital as a whole at the SIC cannot be treated ospital and that its Director can t (HoD) of a conventional hospi py and Joint Disorder) will directly under the Medical h immediate effect and will atment of all sports injuries dic surgeon shall function as hatia, Senior Orthopaedics urgeon of this centre against his centre. ill continue to work in this Bhatia will initiate and co- evelopment of this centre. DG, Principal and Medical Deepak Joshi was appointed as Injury Centre on 17.09.2008, Service Commission (in short ntre since then. SIC is not comparable to an pital, such as Paediatrics or Excellence comprising multiple eons, it has faculty in Sports tation (PMR), Physiology and roup ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ staff, r process, without involving the hat the SIC has had a separate nception in 2010, distinct from darjung Hospital, who oversees . On this basis, learned counsel as an ordinary department of nnot be equated with the Head ital department. s

t n r e

d

e e m s l f d by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

8.7 Learned Gazette Notif minimum of Medicine wou Assistant Pro vacancies for stipulating the pursuant to th the Sports In recruitment f Sports Injury appointments 8.8 With re submitted tha the appointme the Minister o No. 4, Dr. Dee Health and Fa by the Selectio 8.9 Learned the post of Dir through a Sel In support of Central Institu of Director wa as Director o Health and Fa d counsel also submitted that th fication dated 07.04.2014 (An two years' experience in the fi uld be a desirable qualification ofessor in the SIC. Pursuant r the post of Assistant Profes e said experience requirement. he advertisement and was appo njury Centre through UPSC. framework consistently recogn y or Sports Medicine as s in the Centre. egard to the appointment of the at, as per the practice followed in ent was made through a Selectio of Health and Family Welfare. T epak Joshi, was also approved b amily Welfare, Shri Mansukh M on Committee of various names. d counsel further contended tha rector, SIC, to be advertised and ection Committee on the basis f this contention, learned cou ute of Orthopaedics (CIO), Safda as likewise not advertised and n 09.02.2026, with the appro amily Welfare. Accordingly, he he Government of India issued a nexure-E) prescribing that a ield of Sports Injury or Sports for appointment to the post of thereto, UPSC advertised six ssor in 2014 (Annexure-F), Respondent No.4 also applied ointed as Assistant Professor in Thus, he contended that the nised specialised experience in a relevant qualification for e Director, SIC, learned counsel n the case of previous Directors, on Committee and approved by The appointment of Respondent by the then Union Minister for Mandaviya, after consideration . at there is no mandate requiring d that the appointment is made of merit rather than seniority. unsel drew a parallel with the arjung Hospital, where the post Dr. Sumit Sural was appointed oval of the Union Minister for submitted that the established a a s f x

d n e n r l

y t r n g e

e t d r d by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

practice in re through a Sele 8.10 Learned associated wit member of the before the Ap transferred fro the SIC on 02 transferred fr 08.01.2020. 8.11 Learned transfers of t sanctioned va counsel, neith absorbed into additional facu could not claim the SIC. 8.12 Learned members nor lesser experien assert their se their claim ou rather than be SIC. 8.13 With re learned couns espect of both institutions was ection Committee, subject to mi d counsel further submitted th the SIC from 17.09.2008 a e SIC, having acquired more tha pplicants joined it. Applicant om the General Orthopaedics D 2.08.2018, whereas Applicant N rom the Central Institute of O d counsel further submitted tha the applicants, no vacancies w acancies having already been her applicant No.1 nor applic o the SIC by the Governmen ulty members. On this basis, he m parity with Respondent No. d counsel argued that the app regular faculty members of th nce in the specialised field. Furt eniority on the basis of their ser ught to be considered in the relev eing used to challenge the appo egard to the performance of R sel submitted that, after assum s to make such appointments nisterial approval. that Respondent No.4 was and was, therefore, a founding an a decade of experience there No. 1, Dr. Skand Sinha, was Department of RML Hospital to No. 2, Dr. Devendra Singh, was Orthopaedics to the Centre on at, at the time of the respective were available in the SIC, all n filled. According to learned cant No.2 had been formally nt, and they were working as e contended that the applicants 4 on the ground of seniority in plicants were neither founding he SIC and had comparatively ther, if the applicants sought to rvice in Orthopaedics generally, vant Orthopaedics Department, ointment of the Director of the Respondent No.4 as Director, ming charge on 31.10.2023, Dr. s s g e s o s n e l d y s

n g y o

e

by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

Deepak Joshi which had a c 155 beds. Lear completed the and operation 8.14 Learned Centre in its patients treate record throug demonstrate t by Responden 8.15 Learned accomplished applicants alle separate units other faculty m that the appli hands of Resp 8.16 Lastly, that the appoi through the pr authority, and enforceable ri prayed that th

9. In rebu Sinha, learned above noted undertook the task of shifting capacity of 42 beds, to the new rned counsel contended that th e shifting process and made th nal by January 2024. d counsel further submitted th present premises, as well as th ed by Respondent No. 4 and h gh Annexure J. These ma the administrative and professio nt No. 4. d counsel also contended that R surgeon but also an effectiv egedly working as additional fa s to them and had not discrim members of the Centre. Learned icants had not suffered any di pondent No. 4. learned counsel appearing for intment of Dr. Deepak Joshi as rescribed selection process, with d that the applicants had fai ight warranting interference by he instant OA be dismissed. uttal to the above contentions d counsel appearing for the app submissions, has reiterated the SIC from its old premises, w premises having a capacity of he respondent no.4 successfully he new Centre fully functional hat the faculty strength of the he details of the OPD and IPD his faculty, had been placed on aterials were relied upon to onal responsibilities discharged Respondent No. 4 is not only an ve administrator. Despite the culty members, he had allotted minated against them vis-à-vis d counsel, therefore, submitted iscriminatory treatment at the Respondent No. 4 contended s Director, SIC, had been made h the approval of the competent iled to establish any legal or y this Tribunal. Accordingly, he of respondent nos.1 to 3, Shri plicants besides reiterating the d that the appointment of

f y l e D n o d n e d

d e d e t r e i e f by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

respondent N vide impugne unsustainable fair and objec also submitte of Head of D transparent p and establishe 9.1 Learned and Medical respectively, Family Welf comparable p objective pro respondents c their choice w which the c respondents h SIC, was fill advertisemen eligible and e considered. I failure to disc to the post in selection was The responde was consisten absence, with appointments

No. 4 as Director, SIC (SIC), VM ed order dated 31.10.2023, is e in law, having been made wi ctive procedure for considerat ed that the post of Director, SIC epartment (HoD), ought to be procedure consistent with the ed norms governing appointme d counsel submitted that the po Superintendent, carrying Lev are selection posts for which fare conducts interviews. Th posts are filled reinforces the ocedure for appointment to cannot claim unfettered discre without disclosing the govern competing eligible candidate have failed to satisfactorily exp led by appointing responden nt, inviting applications or prov experienced faculty members, i In absence of an open selecti close any pre-determined criter n question, gives rise to a legi s made through an arbitrary ents are required to demonstra nt with the applicable Recruitm h valid and pre-existing polic s.

MMC and Safdarjung Hospital, arbitrary, discriminatory and ithout following a transparent, tion of eligible candidates. He C, being equivalent to the post e filled by adopting a fair and applicable rules, instructions ents to comparable positions. osts of Director of the Institute vel-15 and Level-14 pay levels, h the Ministry of Health and he manner in which such e necessity of a rational and the post in question. The etion to appoint any person of ning criteria and the basis on es were considered, as the plain why the post of Director, nt No.4 without issuing any viding an opportunity to other including the applicants, to be on process, coupled with the ria governing the appointment itimate apprehension that the pick-and-choose mechanism. ate that the procedure adopted ment Rules, if any, and, in their cy guidelines governing such

d

e t d s e

d h d e f n e

y r e e t e

d r h by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

9.2 Learned senior-most O their contenti historically be was earlier he Krishna, the l also acknowl reply affidav departure fro that necessita faculty memb 9.3 Learned the sole or de specific griev involving com relevant, rati consideration justify the exc not an indisp adopted by th with the appl criteria and t defence rema under Articles 9.4 Learned appointment Orthopaedics d counsel contended that the Orthopaedic Surgeon in charg ion that seniority, experience a een relevant considerations for eaded by Dr. Deepak Chaudha latter having held additional ch edged by the official respond vit. The respondents have n m the said practice or disclose ated the appointment of respon bers. d counsel did not dispute that ecisive criterion for appointme vance is that, where the post mparative assessment, the s ional and pre-determined cr n to all eligible candidates. Th clusion of the applicants merel pensable criterion. The questi hem was fair, transparent, non- icable rules and instructions. I the comparative assessment u ains incomplete and fails to di s 14 and 16 of the Constitution d counsel for the applican of Dr. Sumeet Sural as D (CIO), as an instance cited i e past practice of placing the ge of the SIC lends support to and professional standing have r the post in question. The SIC ary, Dr. R.K. Arya and Dr. L.G. harge. Further, this position is dents in paragraph 7 of their not adequately explained the ed the objective considerations ndent No. 4 over other eligible t seniority must invariably be ent to every higher post. Their t is filled through a process selection must be based on riteria and must afford fair he official respondents cannot ly by asserting that seniority is ion is whether the procedure -discriminatory and consistent In absence of disclosure of the undertaken, the respondents' ispel the applicants' challenge of India. nts further rely upon the Director, Central Institute of in support of their contention e o e C

r e s e e r

n r t

e t e

e e f n by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

that seniority appointments from Maulan Orthopaedics Orthopaedic S the responde approach in t is stated to b automatic pa contended th the procedure 9.5 Learned outstanding relevant acad record as An respectively. consideration have not ade experience, p against respo applied criter by itself, estab disclose the candidates co 9.6 Learned respondents' the appointm y has been accorded significanc

s. According to the applicant na Azad Medical College t and appointed as its Director, Surgeon. The applicants’ learne ents ought to explain the ba the present case, particularly w be equivalent to that of HoD arity merely on the basis of th at the respondents must demo e, if any, rests upon a lawful an d counsel argued that bo service records, substantial demic publications, particulars nnexure AR-1 (colly.) and These credentials were mat n for appointment to the post equately demonstrated that t professional accomplishments ondent No. 4 on the basis of ria. The mere constitution of a blish the fairness or legality of mandate of the Committe onsidered and the reasons unde d counsel for the applicants sp reliance upon the alleged scre ment of respondent No. 4. Lear ce in comparable institutional ts, Dr. Sural was transferred to the Central Institute of being the senior-most eligible ed counsel also submitted that asis for adopting a different when the post of Director, SIC, D. The applicants do not seek he said instance; rather, they onstrate that the distinction in d objective basis. oth the applicants possess professional experience and whereof have been placed on d Annexure AR-2 (colly.), terial to their claim for fair in question. The respondents the applicants' qualifications, and suitability were assessed any disclosed and uniformly Screening Committee cannot, the process unless the records ee, the criteria applied, the erlying the recommendation. pecifically disputed the official eening process culminating in rned counsel submitted that a l d f e t t

k y n s d n

r

d y

e l n a by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

Screening Co transparent s decision was respondents a for constitutin the criteria ad candidates co No.4 despite particulars ar arbitrary and 9.7 Learned Memorandum Standard Op hospital or furnished a c to the post in no.4 as the D equivalent to contended th governing rul was made a procedure. T discretion in filling a public 9.8 Learned discretion is s the compete ommittee cannot be treated as selection procedure merely bec s taken in its meeting date are required to establish the l ng the said Committee, the ter dopted before undertaking the onsidered and the reasons fo being junior to the applican re disclosed, the applicants' al lacked objective safeguards rem d counsel for the applicants sp m dated 11.04.2023, which, ac perating Procedure (SOP) for teaching institution. The of onvincing explanation as to w question, was not followed wh Director, SIC, particularly wh that of HoD. In the alternati hat the said SOP is inapplic les, instructions or policy unde and explain the objective ba The official respondents cann the abstract to avoid scrutiny c post. d counsel denied that mere sufficient to sustain the impug ent authority possesses disc s a substitute for a lawful and cause it was constituted and a ed 30.08.2023. The official legal and administrative basis rms of reference assigned to it, e exercise, the eligibility of the or recommending respondent nts. Unless these foundational llegation that the process was mains unanswered. pecifically rely upon the Office ccording to them, prescribes a r appointment of HoDs in a fficial respondents have not why the said SOP, if applicable hile appointing the respondent hen the post is claimed to be ive, if the official respondents cable, they must identify the er which the said appointment asis for adopting a different not rely upon administrative y of the procedure adopted for e assertion of administrative ned appointment. Even where cretion to select a suitable d a l

e t l

e a a t e t e s e t t e r e e e by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

candidate, suc and in a mann non-arbitrarin founded mere adopt a fai demonstrate t basis. The off undermines t no.4. 9.9 Learned appointment convenience functioning. T said post ou procedure, ha post and the established th applications applicants, circumstance 9.10 Learned representatio Director, VM annexed as A regarding the arrangements the applicants ch discretion must be exercised ner consistent with constitutio ness. According to the appli ely upon their non-selection b ir procedure, disclose objec that the eligible candidates wer ficial respondents' failure to ad their defence of the impugned d counsel vehemently ar cannot be justified by merely r of the institution or the nee The applicants' contention is ught to have been made th aving due regard to the appli e claims of eligible candidate hat the appointment of respon or providing an opportunit was necessitated by any or was otherwise supported by d counsel for the applicants n dated 02.03.2026 submitte MMC and Safdarjung Hospita Annexure AR-3. The said re e distribution of beds, operati s among the units functioning s, Unit-HA and Unit-HB togeth d within the framework of law onal guarantees of equality and icants, their grievance is not but upon the alleged failure to ctive selection criteria and re considered on a comparable ddress these aspects materially d appointment of respondent rgued that the impugned referring to the administrative ed to ensure continuity in its that the appointment to the hrough a legally sustainable icable rules, the nature of the

s. The respondents have not ndent No. 4, without inviting ty for consideration to the compelling administrative y a valid policy. also place reliance upon the ed by applicant No. 1 to the al, a copy whereof has been epresentation raises concerns ion theatre facilities and OPD g under the SIC. According to her have been allotted 26 beds, w d t o d e y t d e s e e e t g e e e e n s D o by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

as compared also have few days. The sai authority but material has regarding the The legality o independently and the releva 9.11 Learned absence of a alleged depar functioning verification respondents t obligation to making proce impugned app 9.12 With re alleged Screen counsel sub recommendat for an effectiv prayed for a records relati No. 4, as the p the Committe with 52 beds under Units I a wer operation theatre tables d id concerns were brought to t were not effectively address been placed on record as par e functioning of the SIC under of the appointment, however, y on the basis of the applicable ant contemporaneous records. d counsel reiterated that the an advertisement, the non-in rture from the previous pract of the Screening Committe from the official records themselves. The official respon produce the relevant records ess before this Tribunal, rath pointment through general and egard to the official respondent ning Committee meeting date bmitted that the relevan tions and approval of the com ve adjudication of the controv direction to respondent No ing to the said meeting and th production of these records is n ee applied any pre-existing crit and II, while the former units despite sharing the same OPD the notice of the competent sed by respondent No.4. This rt of the applicants' grievance r the impugned appointment. is required to be determined e rules, the selection procedure material facts concerning the nvitation of applications, the tice and the constitution and ee are matters capable of maintained by the official ndents are, therefore, under an and place the actual decision- her than seek to sustain the d unsubstantiated assertions. ts' contentions concerning the ed 30.08.2023, the applicants’ nt file, notings, minutes, mpetent authority are essential versy. The applicants’ counsel

o. 1 to produce the complete he appointment of respondent necessary to ascertain whether teria, whether the claims of the s D t

e

d e e e d f l n e e ’

l l e t r e by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

applicants an recommendat relevant and administrativ judicial scruti legally sustain 9.13 Learned directed agai appointment assertion of s respondents f or other val consistent wi respondents' forming the b records by thi 9.14 Lastly, respondent N urged in the i by this Tribun

10. In rebu learned couns by Responden Respondent N his appointm made arbitrar in the absenc d other eligible candidates wer tion and consequential appo objective considerations. An ve discretion cannot, by itself iny of the legality of the impu nable ground for withholding a d counsel for the applicants re inst the legality and fairness of respondent No. 4 and is superior seniority. The centra followed the applicable Recruit lid instructions, and a fair ith Articles 14 and 16 of the failure to disclose the governin basis of the decision warrant is Tribunal. learned counsel argued th Nos. 1 to 3 does not satisfactoril instant OA. As such, the prese nal. uttal to the contentions of t sel for the applicants submitte nt No.4 is misconceived and m No.4 had not specifically denied ment as Director, SIC, VMMC rily, without following the app ce thereof, any governing polic re considered, and whether the ointment were founded upon ny claim of confidentiality or f, dispense with the need for ugned decision, subject to any a particular record. iterated that their challenge is s of the process adopted for not founded solely upon an al issue is whether the official tment Rules, the relevant SOP and transparent procedure e Constitution of India. The ng framework and the material s examination of the original hat the defence raised by y answer the material grounds ent OA deserves to be allowed the private respondent no.4, ed that the counter-reply filed misleading. He contended that d the applicants’ assertion that and Safdarjung Hospital, was plicable Recruitment Rules or, cy or prescribed procedure of e n r r y s r n l P e e l l y

d

d t t

f by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

the Governme the OA ha particularly w specifically re submitted tha 10.1 Learne Respondent N since its ince Centre were Director. He associated w institution did occupy its hig was required Rules or, in t selection proc approach in Articles 14 an 10.2 Learne the relevant t Injury Centr founding me Government entitlement to had contribut not dispense process.

ent. According to learned coun ad, therefore, remained s when the official Respondents ebut the said assertions. The a at the impugned appointment d ed counsel also contended No.4 regarding his association eption and his alleged status a wholly irrelevant to the leg argued that merely because a with the establishment or dev d not confer upon him any aut ghest administrative post. Every to be made in accordance wit their absence, the relevant Go cedure. The respondents could making such appointments, nd 16 of the Constitution of Indi ed counsel further submitted t time, been working as a contra e was established. He also ember had no recognised no service framework and could o appointment as Director. Th ted to the development of the C with the requirement of a law nsel, the material averments in ubstantially uncontroverted, Nos.1 to 3 had also failed to applicants’ counsel accordingly deserved to be set aside. that the submissions of n with the Sports Injury Unit as a founding member of the gality of his appointment as an officer or doctor had been velopment of a Government tomatic or preferential right to y appointment to a public post th the applicable Recruitment overnment policy and a lawful d not adopt a pick-and-choose , as the same would offend ia. that Respondent No. 4 had, at actual doctor when the Sports argued that the expression omenclature in the relevant not, by itself, confer any legal he fact that Respondent No. 4 Centre, even if accepted, could wful and transparent selection n

o y f t e

n t o t t l e d t s n t l d n Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

10.3 Refutin could not be counsel subm hospital had i to public hea invoked to ju fairness, equa applicants, be qualifications the post of D been associate 10.4 With re pursuant to th UPSC adverti a recruitmen Respondent N the said adv applicants, R applicants ha Learned coun No. 4 in this establish his Director. 10.5 Learne the requisite and Sports M No. 4 had est or that their ng the contention that the SIC w e equated with an ordinary h mitted that every specialised d its own importance, profession althcare. The specialised natur ustify departure from the co ality and non-arbitrariness. In t eing regularly appointed seni s and experience, could not be Director merely on the ground ed with the Centre for a longer egard to the recruitment of A he Gazette Notification dated 0 sement, learned counsel subm nt process was not disputed. No. 4 had been appointed as A vertisement was specifically espondent No. 4 had been ap d been appointed in 2007 and nsel also contended that the av s regard were incorrect and superior service status or en ed counsel further submitted t qualifications and experience Medicine. Neither the official tablished that the applicants la appointments or postings to t was a Centre of Excellence and hospital department, learned department of a Government nal expertise and contribution re of the Centre could not be onstitutional requirements of this regard, he argued that the ior doctors with the requisite e denied fair consideration for d that Respondent No. 4 had period. Assistant Professors in the SIC 07.04.2014 and the subsequent mitted that the existence of such However, the assertion that Assistant Professor pursuant to disputed. According to the pointed in 2008, whereas the were, therefore, senior to him. verments made by Respondent could not be relied upon to ntitlement to appointment as that the applicants possessed e in the field of Sports Injury Respondents nor Respondent acked the necessary experience the SIC were illegal. Then, he d d t n e f e e r d C t h t

e e

t o s d y t e e by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

argued that applicants’ eli greater experi date. 10.6 Learne was not a re Sports Injury the principal the SIC and Safdarjung H earlier appoi through a Sel appointment prescribed se learned couns alleged past authority or w officers. 10.7 Learne reliance upon subsequent t postings had b law, and thei because they counsel conte additional fac defeating the applicants’ co

Respondent No. 4 could n igibility or suitability merely b ience or had been associated w ed counsel strongly disputed elevant consideration in the a y Centre, and submitted that se criterion followed in appointm d the Central Institute of O Hospital. He argued that the ab ntments or the alleged pract ection Committee could not, b if the applicable Recruitment election procedure had not be sel contended that the respon practice to justify an appoin without fair consideration of th ed counsel further submitted n his longer experience in ransfers to the Centre was m been ordered by the competen ir service and experience coul y had joined the Centre after ended that the assertion that culty members or extra faculty ir claim to fair consideration ounsel reiterated that applican not seek to undermine the by asserting that he possessed with the Centre from an earlier the contention that seniority appointment of the Director, eniority had consistently been ments to the post of Director of Orthopaedics at VMMC and bsence of an advertisement in tice of making appointments by itself, validate the impugned t Rules, Government policy or een followed. The applicants’ ndents could not rely upon an ntment made without lawful he claims of eligible and senior d that Respondent No. 4’s the SIC and the applicants’ misconceived. The applicants’ nt authority in accordance with ld not be disregarded merely r Respondent No.4. Learned t the applicants were merely y had no legal basis capable of for the post in question. The nts were senior to Respondent e d r y

n f d n s d r ’ n l r s

’ h y d y f e t by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

No.4 and p experience. 10.8 Learne assess and c professional m being a conte official Respo professional s appeared to b the official Re the applicant competent au rather than be No.4 in his pe 10.9 Learne publications a Respondent N were the only apart from s Applicant No the field of a learned couns demonstrably appointment respective cre 10.10 Refutin handedly shif facility and possessed the requisite pro ed counsel also objected to R compare the applicants’ abili merit with his own. He subm esting private respondent, cou ondents or determine the a standing. Learned counsel all be advancing grounds that had espondents Nos. 1 to 3. Learne ts’ claims were required to uthority in accordance with th eing rejected on the basis of as ersonal defence. ed counsel further asserted tha and innovations equal to or gr No.4. Learned counsel also s y supervisors of the Ph.D. pro upervising candidates pursuin . 2, in particular, was stated to arthroscopy much before Resp sel disputed the suggestion tha y superior professional merit over the applicants without edentials. ng the claim of Respondent fted the SIC from its old prem made it operational by Jan ofessional qualifications and Respondent No. 4’s attempt to ity, eligibility, suitability and mitted that Respondent No. 4, uld not assume the role of the pplicants’ service rights and leged that Respondent No. 4 d not been specifically taken by ed counsel also contended that be considered fairly by the he governing rules and policy, ssertions made by Respondent at the applicants had scientific reater in number than those of ubmitted that both applicants ogramme in Sports Medicine, ng M.D. in Sports Medicine. o have acquired experience in pondent No.4. On this basis, at Respondent No.4 possessed or experience warranting his t due consideration of their No. 4 that he had single- mises to the new 155-bedded nuary 2024, learned counsel d o d

e d

y t e

t c f

n

d s r - d l by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

submitted th Directors, na supervision o Hospital, and Family Welfa Learned cou constituted fo equipment, m not the Cha appointment Learned coun operationalisa independent possessed the to the post of 10.11 Learned had treated administrativ that Respond was self-servi the Centre. Th No.4 and pos credentials. 10.12 In part acted beyond Medicine vid Annexure A declaration ve hat the exercise had been u amely, Dr. R.K. Arya and D of the Medical Superintende d with the active guidance of are and the Directorate Genera nsel also contended that se or technical specifications, tech manpower, inspection and insta airman of any of these Co as Director, was not even f nsel accordingly disputed the ation of the new Centre esta administrative achievements e requisite prior administrativ Director. d counsel further denied the as the applicants fairly or h ve conduct by allotting separate dent No. 4’s claim to be a good ing and did not reflect the actu he applicants reiterated that th ssessed superior or comparab ticular, learned counsel allege d his authority by declaring de Office Order dated 16.01 AR-1. According to the applica ested either in the Ministry of undertaken by the previous Dr. L.G. Krishna, under the ent, VMMC and Safdarjung f the Ministry of Health and al of Health Services (DGHS). everal committees had been hnical evaluation, non-medical allation. Respondent No. 4 was mmittees and, prior to his functioning as a Unit Head. e claim that the shifting and ablished Respondent No. 4’s s or demonstrated that he ve experience for appointment ssertion that Respondent No.4 ad demonstrated exemplary e units to them. He contended and benevolent administrator ual circumstances prevailing in hey were senior to Respondent ble professional and academic d that Respondent No. 4 had himself the Head of Sports 1.2024, placed on record as nts, the power to make such a Health and Family Welfare or s e g d

n l

s

d s e t

y d r n t c d

a r by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

in the Directo could not ass alleged that R the distributi issued by the Annexure A the official Re

11. In supp reliance on th

(i) San Ben

(ii) Sta Ors

(iii) Stat SCO

(iv) Ren Haz

(v) Nat repo 11.1 Learned is squarely co this Tribunal

(i) Ord No.2 the

(ii) Ord

Prin or, VMMC and Safdarjung Ho sume such authority on his o Respondent No. 4 had discrimin ion of units and had failed to e Director, VMMC and Safdar AR-3 to the rejoinder filed in re espondents. port of the claim of the appl he following decisions:- nt Ram Sharma Vs. State nch), reported as 1967 SCC OnL ate of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Br

s. reported as MANU/SC/034 1 te of Orissa Vs. Mamta M O 436, para 35-38, 56-57, 59; nu & Others Vs. District zari, reported as 2014 (14) SCC tional Fertilizers Ltd. & O orted as 2006 (5) SCC 493, par d counsel also submitted that overed by the following two co l: der/judgment dated 06.07 2623/2016 titled as Dr. Anit Principal Bench of this Tribuna der/judgment dated 29.04.2 1/2024 titled as Pushplata ncipal Bench of this Tribunal.

ospital, and Respondent No. 4 own. Learned counsel further nated against the applicants in o comply with the directions rjung Hospital, as reflected in esponse to the counter-reply of icant, learned counsel placed of Rajasthan (Constitution Line SC 16, para 8, 9; rijeshwar Singh Chahal & 1/2016 para 16-30; Mohanty reported as 2011 (3) and Sessions Judge, Tis C 50, para 5, 12-17; and Others Vs. Somvir Singh, ra 20-22 & 25. the issue involved in this case oordinate Bench judgments of 7.2018 passed in O.A. ta Jain Vs. UOI & Anr., by al, paras 12; 2025 passed in O.A. No. a Vs. UOI & Ors. by the r n s n f d n &

s

e f

y

e Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

11.2 On the submitted tha including oth reason of just in case of the Respondent N is of no subst such appoint advertisemen norm. Any co the eyes of law followed in th se. Such ap respondents a obligation of perpetuate ille 11.3 Lastly, appointment been made w without fairly be senior an respondents relying upon claimed adm appointment prayed that quashed and s strength of above relied upon at in the case of selection of H her appointments, SOP has bee tification as to why the rule or appointment of Director, SIC. No.l to 3 that the consideration tance in as much as there is vi tment is without following nt, no application, no criteria onsideration by any authority

w. Further, once it is admitted f he appointment of Respondent ppointment cannot survive are competent. It is settled la f all courts to enforce the r egal appointments based on sy , learned counsel for the ap of Respondent No. 4 as Direc without following a lawful an y considering the claims of the nd professionally qualified. H could not justify the impug Respondent No. 4’s earlier as ministrative accomplishments through a Selection Committ the impugned appointment set aside.

n judgments, learned counsel HoDs of various departments en pre-notified and there is no policy should not be followed Further, the contention of the n was by the senior authorities iolation of Article 14 & 16 and due process of law 1.e. no , no policy or pre-laid down is per-se illegal and nullity in fact that no fair procedure was t No.4, the same is illegal per- merely because the official aw that it is the constitutional rule of law and it must not ympathy. pplicants submitted that the ctor, Sports Injury Centre, had nd transparent procedure and applicants, who were stated to He also contended that the gned appointment merely by ssociation with the Centre, his or the alleged practice of ee. Learned counsel therefore order dated 31.10.2023 be l s o d e

d o n n

- l l t e d d o e y s f e e by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

12. Having pleadings, w Disorder) at to a full-fled and Family specialised f Deepak Cha who were ap time to time as Specialist and promote and Applica Teaching Su and promot Joshi, was subsequently upon by th respectively, are presently SIC.

13. Respon impugned o to the reco 30.08.2023 Ministry of respondents level officers the Central H

heard the learned counsel for we observe that the Sports Injur t VMMC and Safdarjung Hospi dged SIC pursuant to the appr y Welfare dated 22.02.2008 facility under the administrativ udhary initially headed the Cen ppointed or entrusted with the

e. It is also not in dispute that A t Grade-II (Orthopaedics) thro ed to the Senior Administrative ant No. 2 was appointed a ub-cadre of Orthopaedics thro ted to SAG on 06.03.2020. R appointed through the y promoted to SAG on 17.09. he applicants places them a , and Respondent No. 4 at Se y working as Heads of Units 2 ndent No. 4 was appointed order dated 31.10.2023 for a te ommendation of a Screening under the chairpersonship f Health and Family Welfar s, the Committee considered a s belonging to the Teaching and Health Service in the specialty r the parties and perusing the ry Unit (Arthroscopy and Joint ital, New Delhi, was upgraded roval of the Ministry of Health

8. The SIC functions as a ve control of the hospital. Dr. ntre, followed by other officers charge of its directorship from Applicant No. 1 was appointed ough the UPSC on 11.06.2007 e Grade (SAG) on 05.02.2020, as Specialist Grade-II in the ough the UPSC on 21.08.2007 Respondent No. 4, Dr. Deepak UPSC on 17.09.2008 and 2021. The seniority list relied at Serial Nos. 377 and 408, erial No. 505. Both applicants 2A and 2B, respectively, at the as Director, SIC, vide the enure of three years, pursuant g Committee which met on of the Additional Secretary, re. According to the official combined list of eligible SAG- d Non-Teaching Sub-cadres of of Orthopaedics, including the e t d h a

s m d e k d d

s e e t n

l f e Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

applicants, a suitability. T the procedur

14. There is appointment advertisemen Office Memo relation to th official respon of Director, S ordinary Hea through a Sc authority. The appointment procedure thu

15. It is representatio February 202 impugned ap condonation Tribunal vide advanced riv relevance of s a fair, transpa applicable rul

16. The offi meeting of S

and recommended Responden The applicants, however, dispu re adopted for making the said s no dispute that the appl of Respondent No. 4 primarily nt was issued and that the pro orandum/SOP dated 11.04.20 e selection of Heads of Depart ndents maintain that the said S SIC, which, according to them ad of Department, and that creening Committee with the e applicability of the said SOP to the post, and the legality us remain matters of controver also not in dispute that ns challenging the appointm 26 and that the present OA pointment order dated 31.10.2 of delay, being MA No. 166 e order dated 24.09.2026. T val submissions on the legal seniority and specialised exper arent and non-arbitrary selecti les and Articles 14 and 16 of the icial respondents have produce Screening Committee held on nt No. 4 on an assessment of ute the fairness and legality of d appointment. licants have challenged the y on the ground that no public ocedure prescribed under the 023, relied upon by them in tments, was not followed. The SOP is inapplicable to the post m, is distinct from that of an the appointment was made e approval of the competent , the governing framework for and fairness of the selection rsy requiring adjudication. the applicants submitted ment of Respondent No. 4 in A was instituted to assail the 2023. The application seeking 2/2026, was allowed by this The parties have accordingly lity of the appointment, the rience, and the requirement of on process consistent with the e Constitution of India. ed a copy of the minutes of the n 30.08.2023 to recommend f f e c e n e t n e t r n d n e g

y e f e e d by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

suitable office Delhi, which i “A meetin officer for (SIC), Saf in the Cha Compos i. M ii.

iii. M

2. The C (Ortho) ( who was to Dr. RM LG. Krish Institute Director, there is a

3. It was is an adm age. Furt earmarke Specialist

4. A Com Sub-Cadr Governm that of SI Committe

5. The C and othe Consultan Sub-cadr Injury ce period of

6. The a clearance

16.1 In fu Screening C competent a has also bee 27.09.2023 0 under:

er for the post of Director, S is reproduced as under:- ng of the Screening Committee fo r appointment to the post of Dir fdarjung Hospital (SJH), New De amber of Additional Secretary (R sition of Screening Committe Ms. Roli Singh, Addl. Secretary Dr. Atul Goel, DGHS Ms. Vandana Jain, Joint Secreta Committee was informed that D (an SAG level officer of Non-Tea holding the post of Director, SIC MLH vide Office Order dated 08.0 hna, Director Professor (Ortho of Orthpaedics (CIO), ŠJH is Sports Injury Centre (SIC) as need for appointment of a full tim s informed to the Committee tha ministrative post which an officer ther, as per CHS Rules. 2014, t ed to SAG level officer of Tea t Sub-cadre of CHS. mbined list of SAG level officers re of CHS) in Orthopaedic Specia ment Hospitals, Institutes viz. SJH IC below 62 years of age were c ee. Committee after taking into acco er relevant factors, recomme nt(Orthopaedics) (an SAG leve re of CHS) for appointment to th entre(SIC), Safdarjung Hospita f 3 years. appointment to the post woul e of the officer.” urtherance of the aforenote Committee, the matter was t authority by the official respon en produced by the official resp 09:09 am of the Chairperson o

SIC, Safdarjung Hospital, New for consideration of suitable rector, Sports Injury centre elhi was held on 15.04.2023 RS). ee is as under:

- Chairperson

- Member ary - Member Dr. R.K. Arya, Consultant aching Sub-cadre of CHS), C was transferred from SJH 02.2022. And since then Dr. o), HOD/Director, Central looking after the work of s additional charge. Thus, me Director, SIC. at the post of HOD/Director r can hold upto 62 years of the post of Director, SIC is aching and Non-Teaching (Teaching & Non-Teaching alty posted in three Central H/Dr. RMLH/LHMC as well considered by the Selection ount suitability for the post ended Dr. Deepak Joshi, el officer of Non-Teaching he post of Director, Sports l (SJH), New Delhi for a d be subject to vigilance ed recommendations of the aken up for approval of the ndents, the noting of the same pondents, in Note 434 dated of the said Committee noted as w e e e d s by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

“The no who were members - of SIC) ha age hence Joshi (then by UPSC a associatio one of the Joshi is the having mi 20 years e

Sports the new Ce who under the post o specialised

The Ce which is other thin new buildi Minutes of selection o Hon. HFM

16.2 A per subsequent n whether a su identify and Director, SIC level officers CHS in the s Government considered, th said list, the applied to ea which Respo noting dated Respondent N as a surgeon proceeds to d ote has the names of the three Spec manning the Unit at that time an

- Dr. Deepak Chawdhary (unit hea as since supereannuated, Dr. Naval is not eligible to be HoD as per the n specialist Surgeon on contract), w against the post of Orthopedic Surg n with the SIC since inception and e best surgeons in the field of spor e most eligible candidate for the pos in. 10 years experience in the depar experience in the field. injury Centre is currently updergo entre needs dedicated leadership fro rstand the requirements of the Cent of Director SIC, was a general or d filed, and had to be removed in 20 entre cannot run on the current c taking a toll on the functioning of t ngs, from the reports on the prog ing, which is delayed by 2 years. of the Screeing Committee meeting d of Director SIC, Safdarjung Hospita M through MOS (BPP).”

usal of the minutes of the S noting dated 27.09.2023 rais ufficiently broad and objective assess all eligible officers for . Although the minutes record belonging to the Teaching and speciality of Orthopaedics, po hospitals and institutes and hey do not disclose the names number of officers consider ach officer, or the comparativ ondent No. 4 was found suit d 27.09.2023 appears to pla No. 4's association with SIC sin n in the field of sports injur describe him as the “most elig cialists (Orthopedic Surgeons) nd can be called the founder ad who later become Director Bhatia has attained 62 yrs of extant policy, and Dr. Deepak who was subsequently selected eon. Therefore by virtue of his d looking at his reputation as rts injury in the country, Dr. st. He also fulfils the criteria of tment, whereas he has almost oing further upgradation and om within the super-speciality tre. The previous incumbent to rthopaedic and not from the 22 as he could not deliver. caretaker HoD arrangement the SIC and is evident, among gress of commissioning of the dt. 30.08.2023 at p 240/C for al is submitted for approval of Screening Committee and the ses a material concern as to e exercise was undertaken to r appointment to the post of d that a combined list of SAG- d Non-Teaching Sub-cadres of osted at the identified Central below 62 years of age, was of the officers included in the red, the eligibility parameters ve assessment on the basis of table. More significantly, the ace substantial emphasis on nce its inception, his reputation ries and his experience, and gible candidate”. However, the e o o f - f l s e s f e n n d e by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

noting does n prescribed e assessment o such a conclu 16.3 We a leadership po involve consid administrativ the general ca appointment such factors m fact that Res inception may substitute for fair and tran No. 4 possess that the candi absence of consideration presently rep number of eli recommended the contemp appropriately genuine asses principally on candidate.

not, by itself, establish that th eligibility conditions were s on uniform and objectively asc usion was reached. re conscious that appointme osition in a specialised medica deration of specialised experie ve ability and institutional requ adre cannot, by itself, be treate is based on suitability. Neve must be demonstrably fair, con spondent No. 4 had been a ay be a relevant consideration, r consideration of other eligible sparent procedure. Equally, th sed the requisite experience d idature of all other eligible offic particulars demonstrating t n and the comparative criteria produced does not sufficiently igible officers were considered

d. The official respondents are poraneous record that the y constituted and that the reco ssment of suitability, rather th n the prior identification of he other officers meeting the subjected to a comparative certainable parameters before ent to an administrative or al institution may legitimately ence, professional competence, uirements, and that seniority in ed as determinative where the ertheless, the consideration of nsistent and non-arbitrary. The associated with SIC since its , but it cannot be treated as a e officers in accordance with a he assertion that Respondent does not, on its own, establish cers was duly evaluated. In the the scope of the field of actually applied, the material establish that an appropriate before Respondent No. 4 was e not able to demonstrate from field of consideration was ommendation resulted from a han from a conclusion founded one officer as the preferred e e e r y , n e f e s a a t h e f l e s m s a d d by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

17. It is al No.2623/201 another, wh “8. Admit governed reason, t “seniorit the Additi portion re “2. A for a from basis senio peru retir only that have leave

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

3. Ou fact, expe thou to th

4. Th F/Y, Dine last have since know CGH vario the A NCR cand

9. The crit appointing suitability suitable or process. In who asses suitable. O applicant,

10. The re for about just few m was uttere factor in lso relevant to refer the observ 6, titled Dr. Anita Jain hich read as under:- ttedly, the post in question i.e., D d by any specific service ru the appointing authority has i ty and suitability”. It is evident ional Secretary and Director Gen eads as under:- As reported by CHS Division, there a appointment to this post and appoin m senior SAG officers of GDMO su s of seniority and suitability. In ority list of doctors, placed below used. Most of the doctors in this lis re within this calendar year itself; 2-3 months to go. In view of the na continuity of tenure is important an e at least a year before he/she super es the following in fray: Dr. Anita Jain(Seniority no.4) Dr. Ravindra Ahluwalia (Seniority Dr. Chandra Kant (Seniority no.11) Dr. Manisha Saxena (Seniority no.1 Dr. Dinesh C. Joshi (Seniority no.19 ut of the above list, 3 of them are cu Dr. Ahluwalia and Dr. Chandra erience, if at all, of the CGHS. This ugh technically they are not debarre he post. he gist of available APARs of these o reveals that the best record is of esh C. Joshi. Between these two off 3 APARs of Dr. Anita Jain are no e had observed the work and condu e November, 2014 and have found h wledgeable and efficient. He is we HS and can also effectively represe ous forums. He has shown initiativ Addl. Director (HQ) – incharge of al R region; and, in my view, would b didate to the appointed as Director, C terion of “seniority and suitability” a g authority has to consider the se y on the other. Once a candidate, u r if he is not declared unsuitable, t In the instant case, nowhere in the ssed the merits of candidates expre On the other hand, the undispute placed her above the other candida ecord discloses that the applicant w 32 years whereas the association o months as on the date of considerati ed adverse to the applicant. The s deciding the candidature, it canno vations of this Tribunal in OA vs. Union of India and Director of CGHS is not ules. Obviously for that identified the principle of from the notes submitted by neral of CGHS, the relevant are no recruitment rules ntments have been made ub-cadre of CHS on the n this background, the at F/X (CP-9), may be t, upto seniority no. 20, and some in fact have ature of the job, it is felt nd the incumbent should rannuates. The criterion no.10)

urrently not in CGHS. In Kant have hardly any s is a relevant criterion, ed from the appointment officers, placed below at Dr. Anita Jain and Dr. ficers, it is seen that the ot available on record. I ct of Dr. Dinesh C. Joshi him to be hard working, ell regarded within the ent the organisation at ve during his posting as ll Wellness Centres in the be the most appropriate CGHS.” are the basis for selection. The eniority on the one hand and under consideration, is found the seniority would guide the e consideration, the authority essed that the applicant is not ed service particulars of the ates. was associated with the CGHS of the second respondent was ion. Added to that, not a word seniority being the prominent ot be ignored, when there is A d by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

nothing ad the appoin suitability untenable

11. We are though en Governme

12. Injusti The appo proceeding entitled to the date on intend to g of the app entitle her also direc service is work agai

18. It is al State of Ha 266 SC, held a few candid availability of of mind of th persons select

19. In vi considered v question wa and set aside tenure of his 31.10.2023 a respondents post of Direc present incu the equities, while holdin irregular ap dverse against the applicant who is nting authority has deviated from t y” and the appointment of the sec . e informed that the applicant has att ntitled to continue up to the age of ent scheme, she is not entitled to hold ice that was meted out to the appl ointment of second respondent gs dated 27.02.2015, deserves to b be treated as having been appointe n which the second respondent was grant any benefit of back wages, w plicant as Director, CGHS be consid r to the benefit in the context of pen t that in case no other person belo holding the post of Director, the inst that vacancy till a regular appo lso apt to note that the Hon’ble aryana vs. Subhash Chan d that the selection however can dates, notwithstanding the n f qualified candidates. There m he Government and the High ted for appointment is restricte iew of the foregoing discussi view that the appointment of re as illegal and arbitrary and, th e, we refrain from doing so, ke s appointment is for a period o and due to expire on 31.10.202 s brought to our notice that th ctor, NIC, SJH for filling up aft umbent, i.e., respondent no.4. , we hold that the experience ng the post of Director, SIC, S ppointment, shall not be co otherwise senior. In our view, the principle of “seniority and cond respondent was totally tained the age of 62 years and f 65 years under the Revised d any administrative position. licant cannot go unredressed. as Director of CGHS vide be set aside. The petitioner is ed as Director with effect from appointed. Though we do not we direct that the appointment dered as notional which shall nsion and other purposes. We ow the age of 62 years in the applicant shall be entitled to ointment is made.” (emphasis supplied) e Supreme Court in the case of nder Marwah, 1972 IILLJ nnot arbitrarily be restricted to number of vacancies and the must be a conscious application h Court before the number of ed. ion, although we are of the espondent No. 4 to the post in herefore, liable to be quashed eeping in view the fact that the of three years, commencing on 26 and the fact that the official hey have already notified the fter completion of tenure of the However, in order to balance e gained by respondent No. 4 SJH, pursuant to the aforesaid ounted towards the requisite f J o e n f e n d e n l e e e d e Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA

Item No.47/Court No.1

experience a post, if such selection to t

20. The off ensure that, 31.10.2026, SJH, are m adhering to and during t of Director, incumbent, said post. Fo eligible offic considered accordance w

21. The pr preceding pa

22. There

23. Pendin

(Rajinder Membe

/ravi/

and he shall not be given any a h experience is prescribed as the post of Director, SIC, or any ficial respondents, i.e., respond , upon completion of the ten the selection and appointme made in accordance with the the principle of seniority and c the interregnum, the senior-m SIC, SJH, upon completion until the regularly appointed or this purpose, the official resp cers and ensure that the senio for appointment to the pos with the applicable rules. resent OA is disposed of in vie aras 20 and 21 above. shall be no order as to costs. ng MA(s), if any, shall stand di r Kashyap)

er (A)

age relaxation for holding such an eligibility criterion for his y higher post in future. dent Nos. 1 to 3, are directed to nure of respondent No. 4 on ent of the next Director, SIC, applicable rules and by duly considering all eligible officers most official shall hold the post of the tenure of the present official assumes charge of the pondents shall prepare a list of or-most eligible officer is duly st of Director, SIC, SJH, in ew of the observations made in sposed of accordingly. (Justice Ranjit More) Chairman h s o n , y s t t e f y n n by NEETU SHARMA

NEETU SHARMA