Dr. Skand Sinha & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.

According to the applicants, their service records are unblemished. No charge memorandum has been issued against either of them for any alleged misconduct, no criminal prosecution is pending against them, and no adverse APAR has ever been communicated to them. As per the seniority list issued by Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are placed at Serial Nos. 377 and 408, respectively. Whereas, respondent No.4 was appointed as Specialist Grade-II through the UPSC on 17.09.2008 and was promoted to SAG on 17.09.2021. His name appears at Serial No. 505 of the seniority list. The applicants, therefore, contend that Respondent No.4 is junior to both of them in service as well as in the SAG grade.

The applicants averred that appointments to senior posts, such as Head of Department (HoD), Additional Medical Superintendent, Principal, Dean and Director in Central Government hospitals, including Safdarjung Hospital, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and Lady Hardinge Medical College and Hospital, are ordinarily made through a selection process involving public advertisement. In this regard, they rely upon the policy circular/SOP dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure A-2), the earlier Office Memorandum dated 28.12.2018, the policy dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure A-3), and circulars dated 02.12.2023 and 31.10.2025 (Annexure A-4 colly), which, according to them, prescribe the procedure for selection of HoDs, including the constitution of a Standing Selection Committee and selection through due process.

The applicants averred that the post of Director, SIC, under Respondent No.3, is akin to that of HoD and carries corresponding powers and privileges. They alleged that no public advertisement was issued and no prescribed selection procedure was followed before Respondent No.4 was appointed as Director, SIC, vide the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure A-1).

According to the applicants, the appointment of Respondent No. 4 was made arbitrarily, without considering the claims of the applicants and other similarly situated officers, and amounted to a pick-and-choose approach in disregard of the applicable policy, recruitment rules and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. They accordingly allege that Respondent No.4 is holding the post pursuant to an illegal and arbitrary appointment.

The applicants further stated that, upon learning of the appointment, they submitted representations dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure A-5) to Respondent No.1, challenging the appointment and seeking appropriate action. However, according to them, the representations were not considered in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the alleged violation of the applicable selection procedure and the principles of fairness and equality, the applicants have approached this Tribunal by this OA seeking the reliefs as quoted above.

Learned counsel argued that the applicants have got fundamental right under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India for consideration of their candidature for the higher post of Director, SIC and such constitutional right of consideration has been infringed by the arbitrary action of the respondents No.1 & 2. Further, the respondent No.4 has been much junior to the applicants, as would be evident from the eligibility list circulated by the respondent No.1 in as much as the names of the applicants No.1 & 2 appear therein at serial No.377 and 408 whereas as respondent no.4 at serial No.505.

Learned counsel also submitted that the respondents No.1 & 2 did not follow even their own OM/SOP dated 11.04.2023, which is binding upon them in law.

Learned counsel thus argued that the appointment of the respondent No.4 is violative of the settled principle of law of fairness, justice and good conscience at the end of the respondents No.1 & 2 and in utter disregard and colourable exercise of their executive powers vested in them in as much as no advertisement was made calling applications from eligible candidates to participate in the selection process, no eligible candidates, including the applicants, who are senior to the respondent No.4 herein and have been duly qualified, eligible and entitled for consideration for the said post and no merit list was notified after following the due procedure of selection. Therefore, the appointment of the respondent No.4 to the post in question is per-se illegal and void-ab-initio and not only against the fundamental right of the applicants but also against the public interest.

Learned counsel submitted that in view of the arbitrary exercise of power of appointment and recruitment vested in the respondents No.1 & 2, the applicants are compelled to work under their junior i.e., respondent No.4 and such an omission of the respondents No.1 & 2 is humiliating for the applicants.

Learned counsel further submitted that the action of appointment of respondent No.4 as Director, SIC is a result of process unknown to law and is nothing but mere back door entry of the respondent No.4.

Lastly, learned counsel prayed that the appointment of respondent no.4 is required to be set aside and the respondent no.1 and 2 be directed to initiate process for appointment to the post of Director, SIC by following the due process.

Learned counsel further submitted that Dr. Deepak Chaudhary, Senior Orthopedic Surgeon, an officer of the SAG level belonging to the Non-Teaching Sub-cadre of the Central Health Service (CHS), had been heading the Unit since its inception and was initially appointed as Head of the SIC. Subsequently, he was re-designated as Senior Orthopedic Surgeon and Director, SIC, vide MoHFW order dated 10.08.2009. Thereafter, vide office order dated 18.12.2009, specialty-wise posts were sanctioned for the SIC, against which Dr. Deepak Chaudhary, Dr. Naval Bhatia, Specialist Grade-I, and Dr. Deepak Joshi, Specialist Grade-II, continued to be posted. Dr. Deepak Chaudhary was transferred from SIC, Safdarjung Hospital, to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital (in short ‘RMLH’) vide order dated 19.06.2018, while Dr. R.K. Arya, Consultant (Orthopedics), an SAG-level officer of the Non-Teaching Sub-cadre of CHS, was transferred from RMLH to Safdarjung Hospital as Director, SIC. Subsequently, upon the transfer of Dr. R.K. Arya to RMLH vide office order dated 23.12.2022, Dr. L.G. Krishna, Director Professor (Orthopedics) and Head of Department/Director, Central Institute of Orthopedics, Safdarjung Hospital, was entrusted with the additional charge of Director, SIC.

With regard to the selection in question, learned counsel submitted that a meeting of the Screening Committee, chaired by the Additional Secretary, was held on 30.08.2023 to recommend a suitable candidate for appointment as Director, SIC. For this purpose, a combined list of SAG-level officers belonging to both the Teaching and Non-Teaching Sub-cadres of CHS in the Orthopedics specialty, posted at Safdarjung Hospital, Dr. RML Hospital, Lady Hardinge Medical College and SIC, and below 62 years of age, was considered. The applicants, being eligible SAG-level officers at the relevant time, were also included in the list and considered by the Committee. However, they were not selected on the basis of the Committee's overall assessment of their suitability for the post.

Learned counsel contended that, after considering the suitability of the candidates and other relevant factors, the Committee recommended Dr. Deepak Joshi (respondent No.4), Consultant (Orthopedics), an SAG-level officer of the Non-Teaching Sub-cadre of CHS, for appointment as Director, SIC, Safdarjung Hospital, for a tenure of three years. Accordingly, his appointment was notified vide order dated 31.10.2023, with the tenure scheduled to conclude on 31.10.2026.

Learned counsel also contended that the Office Memorandum dated 11.04.2023, prescribing the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), pertained to the selection of Heads of Departments (HoDs) and did not govern appointments to the post of Director. The post of Director, SIC, was stated to be distinct from that of an HoD; hence, the procedure prescribed under the said OM was not applicable to the selection in question.

Learned counsel argued that there is no mandatory requirement to appoint the senior-most officer as Director of an Institute. Rather, the appointment is required to be made on the basis of the candidate's overall suitability for the post, assessed by the competent Selection Committee. Accordingly, the recommendation of Dr. Deepak Joshi (respondent No.4) was defended as having been made after due consideration of the eligible candidates and their respective suitability, and the mere non-selection of the applicants, despite their eligibility, was stated to furnish no ground to interfere with the selection process.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that instant OA deserves to be dismissed by this Tribunal.

Learned counsel also submitted that, at the relevant time, the Sports Injury Unit, CIO, was headed by Dr. Deepak Chaudhary, who, in 2007, submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for upgrading the existing Sports Injury Unit (Arthroscopy and Joint Disorder) into a full-fledged Sports Injury Centre at Safdarjung Hospital. The proposal was necessitated by the substantial increase in the number of patients attending the Unit and the consequent need for enhanced infrastructure, manpower and specialised facilities.

Learned counsel drew attention to Clause 9 of the aforesaid proposal at Annexure-A, which identified Dr. Deepak Chaudhary as the Nodal Officer and Chief Executive for the project. The relevant extract of the proposal reads as under:

Learned counsel also submitted that the proposal was approved by the Ministry vide letter dated 22.02.2008 (Annexure-C). Pursuant to the Ministry's approval, an Office Order dated 24.05.2008 (Annexure-D) was issued by the hospital administration, upgrading the existing Sports Injury Unit into a full-fledged Centre for Sports Injury (Arthroscopy and Joint Disorder). The relevant portion of the said Office Order reads as under:

Learned counsel contended that Dr. Deepak Joshi was appointed as an Orthopaedic Surgeon in the Sports Injury Centre on 17.09.2008, following his selection by the Union Public Service Commission (in short ‘UPSC’), and has continued to serve in the Centre since then.

Learned counsel submitted that the SIC is not comparable to an ordinary Department of Safdarjung Hospital, such as Paediatrics or Gynaecology, but is a specialised Centre of Excellence comprising multiple disciplines. Apart from Orthopaedic Surgeons, it has faculty in Sports Medicine, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PMR), Physiology and Anaesthesiology. The SIC has its own Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ staff, recruited directly for the SIC through a tender process, without involving the general hospital administration.

Learned counsel further contended that the SIC has had a separate Deputy Director of Administration since its inception in 2010, distinct from the Deputy Director of Administration of Safdarjung Hospital, who oversees the administration of the hospital as a whole. On this basis, learned counsel submitted that the SIC cannot be treated as an ordinary department of Safdarjung Hospital and that its Director cannot be equated with the Head of Department (HoD) of a conventional hospital department.

Learned counsel also submitted that the Government of India issued a Gazette Notification dated 07.04.2014 (Annexure-E) prescribing that a minimum of two years' experience in the field of Sports Injury or Sports Medicine would be a desirable qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the SIC. Pursuant thereto, UPSC advertised six vacancies for the post of Assistant Professor in 2014 (Annexure-F), stipulating the said experience requirement. Respondent No.4 also applied pursuant to the advertisement and was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Sports Injury Centre through UPSC. Thus, he contended that the recruitment framework consistently recognised specialised experience in Sports Injury or Sports Medicine as a relevant qualification for appointments in the Centre.

With regard to the appointment of the Director, SIC, learned counsel submitted that, as per the practice followed in the case of previous Directors, the appointment was made through a Selection Committee and approved by the Minister of Health and Family Welfare. The appointment of Respondent No. 4, Dr. Deepak Joshi, was also approved by the then Union Minister for Health and Family Welfare, Shri Mansukh Mandaviya, after consideration by the Selection Committee of various names.

Learned counsel further contended that there is no mandate requiring the post of Director, SIC, to be advertised and that the appointment is made through a Selection Committee on the basis of merit rather than seniority. In support of this contention, learned counsel drew a parallel with the Central Institute of Orthopaedics (CIO), Safdarjung Hospital, where the post of Director was likewise not advertised and Dr. Sumit Sural was appointed as Director on 09.02.2026, with the approval of the Union Minister for Health and Family Welfare. Accordingly, he submitted that the established practice in respect of both institutions was to make such appointments through a Selection Committee, subject to ministerial approval.

Learned counsel further submitted that Respondent No.4 was associated with the SIC from 17.09.2008 and was, therefore, a founding member of the SIC, having acquired more than a decade of experience there before the Applicants joined it. Applicant No. 1, Dr. Skand Sinha, was transferred from the General Orthopaedics Department of RML Hospital to the SIC on 02.08.2018, whereas Applicant No. 2, Dr. Devendra Singh, was transferred from the Central Institute of Orthopaedics to the Centre on 08.01.2020.

Learned counsel further submitted that, at the time of the respective transfers of the applicants, no vacancies were available in the SIC, all sanctioned vacancies having already been filled. According to learned counsel, neither applicant No.1 nor applicant No.2 had been formally absorbed into the SIC by the Government, and they were working as additional faculty members. On this basis, hehe contended that the applicants could not claim parity with Respondent No. 4 on the ground of seniority in the SIC.

Learned counsel argued that the applicants were neither founding members nor regular faculty members of the SIC and had comparatively lesser experience in the specialised field. Further, if the applicants sought to assert their seniority on the basis of their service in Orthopaedics generally, their claim ought to be considered in the relevant Orthopaedics Department, rather than being used to challenge the appointment of the Director of the SIC.

With regard to the performance of Respondent No.4 as Director, learned counsel submitted that, after assuming charge on 31.10.2023, Dr. Deepak Joshi undertook the task of shifting the SIC from its old premises, which had a capacity of 42 beds, to the new premises having a capacity of 155 beds. Learned counsel contended that the respondent no.4 successfully completed the shifting process and made the new Centre fully functional and operational by January 2024.

Learned counsel further submitted that the faculty strength of the Centre in its present premises, as well as the details of the OPD and IPD patients treated by Respondent No. 4 and his faculty, had been placed on record through Annexure J. These materials were relied upon to demonstrate the administrative and professional responsibilities discharged by Respondent No. 4.

Learned counsel also contended that Respondent No. 4 is not only an accomplished surgeon but also an effective administrator. Despite the applicants allegedly working as additional faculty members, he had allotted separate units to them and had not discriminated against them vis-à-vis other faculty members of the Centre. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the applicants had not suffered any discriminatory treatment at the hands of Respondent No. 4.

Lastly, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4 contended that the appointment of Dr. Deepak Joshi as Director, SIC, had been made through the prescribed selection process, with the approval of the competent authority, and that the applicants had failed to establish any legal or enforceable right warranting interference by this Tribunal. Accordingly, he prayed that the instant OA be dismissed.

Learned counsel submitted that the posts of Director of the Institute and Medical Superintendent, carrying Level-15 and Level-14 pay levels, respectively, are selection posts for which the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare conducts interviews. The manner in which such comparable posts are filled reinforces the necessity of a rational and objective procedure for appointment to the post in question. The respondents cannot claim unfettered discretion to appoint any person of their choice without disclosing the governing criteria and the basis on which the competing eligible candidates were considered, as the respondents have failed to satisfactorily explain why the post of Director, SIC, was filled by appointing respondent No.4 without issuing any advertisement, inviting applications or providing an opportunity to other eligible and experienced faculty members, including the applicants, to be considered. In absence of an open selection process, coupled with the failure to disclose any pre-determined criteria governing the appointment to the post in question, gives rise to a legitimate apprehension that the selection was made through an arbitrary pick-and-choose mechanism. The respondents are required to demonstrate that the procedure adopted was consistent with the applicable Recruitment Rules, if any, and, in their absence, with valid and pre-existing policy guidelines governing such appointments.

Learned counsel contended that the past practice of placing the senior-most Orthopaedic Surgeon in charge of the SIC lends support to their contention that seniority, experience and professional standing have historically been relevant considerations for the post in question. The SIC was earlier headed by Dr. Deepak Chaudhary, Dr. R.K. Arya and Dr. L.G. Krishna, the latter having held additional charge. Further, this position is also acknowledged by the official respondents in paragraph 7 of their reply affidavit. The respondents have not adequately explained the departure from the said practice or disclosed the objective considerations that necessitated the appointment of respondent No. 4 over other eligible faculty members.

Learned counsel did not dispute that seniority must invariably be the sole or decisive criterion for appointment to every higher post. Their specific grievance is that, where the post is filled through a process involving comparative assessment, the selection must be based on relevant, rational and pre-determined criteria and must afford fair consideration to all eligible candidates. The official respondents cannot justify the exclusion of the applicants merely by asserting that seniority is not an indispensable criterion. The question is whether the procedure adopted by them was fair, transparent, non--discriminatory and consistent with the applicable rules and instructions. In absence of disclosure of the criteria and the comparative assessment undertaken, the respondents' defence remains incomplete and fails to dispel the applicants' challenge under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel for the applicants further rely upon the appointment of Dr. Sumeet Sural as Director, Central Institute of Orthopaedics (CIO), as an instance cited in support of their contention that seniority has been accorded significance in comparable institutional appointments. According to the applicants, Dr. Sural was transferred from Maulana Azad Medical College to the Central Institute of Orthopaedics and appointed as its Director, being the senior-most eligible Orthopaedic Surgeon. The applicants’ learned counsel also submitted that the respondents ought to explain the basis for adopting a different approach in the present case, particularly when the post of Director, SIC, is stated to be equivalent to that of HoD. The applicants do not seek automatic parity merely on the basis of the said instance; rather, they contended that the respondents must demonstrate that the distinction in the procedure, if any, rests upon a lawful and objective basis.

Learned counsel argued that both the applicants possess outstanding service records, substantial professional experience and relevant academic publications, particulars whereof have been placed on record as Annexure AR-1 (colly.) and Annexure AR-2 (colly.), respectively. These credentials were material to their claim for fair consideration for appointment to the post in question. The respondents have not adequately demonstrated that the applicants' qualifications, experience, professional accomplishments and suitability were assessed against respondent No. 4 on the basis of any disclosed and uniformly applied criteria. The mere constitution of a Screening Committee cannot, by itself, establish the fairness or legality of the process unless the records disclose the mandate of the Committee, the criteria applied, the candidates considered and the reasons underlying the recommendation.

Learned counsel for the applicants specifically disputed the official respondents' reliance upon the alleged screening process culminating in the appointment of respondent No. 4. Learned counsel submitted that a Screening Committee cannot be treated as a substitute for a lawful and transparent selection procedure merely because it was constituted and a decision was taken in its meeting dated 30.08.2023. The official respondents are required to establish the legal and administrative basis for constituting the said Committee, the terms of reference assigned to it, the criteria adopted before undertaking the exercise, the eligibility of the candidates considered and the reasons for recommending respondent No.4 despite being junior to the applicants. Unless these foundational particulars are disclosed, the applicants' allegation that the process was arbitrary and lacked objective safeguards remains unanswered.

Learned counsel for the applicants specifically rely upon the Office Memorandum dated 11.04.2023, which, according to them, prescribes a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for appointment of HoDs in a hospital or teaching institution. The official respondents have not furnished a convincing explanation as to why the said SOP, if applicable to the post in question, was not followed while appointing the respondent no.4 as the Director, SIC, particularly when the post is claimed to be equivalent to that of HoD. In the alternative, if the official respondents contended that the said SOP is inapplicable, they must identify the governing rules, instructions or policy under which the said appointment was made and explain the objective basis for adopting a different procedure. The official respondents cannot rely upon administrative discretion in the abstract to avoid scrutiny of the procedure adopted for filling a public post.

Learned counsel denied that mere assertion of administrative discretion is sufficient to sustain the impugned appointment. Even where the competent authority possesses discretion to select a suitable candidate, such discretion must be exercised within the framework of law and in a manner consistent with constitutional guarantees of equality and non-arbitrariness. According to the applicants, their grievance is not founded merely upon their non-selection but upon the alleged failure to adopt a fair procedure, disclose objective selection criteria and demonstrate that the eligible candidates were considered on a comparable basis. The official respondents' failure to address these aspects materially undermines their defence of the impugned appointment of respondent no.4.

Learned counsel vehemently argued that the impugned appointment cannot be justified by merely referring to the administrative convenience of the institution or the need to ensure continuity in its functioning. The applicants' contention is that the appointment to the said post ought to have been made through a legally sustainable procedure, having due regard to the applicable rules, the nature of the post and the claims of eligible candidates. The respondents have not established that the appointment of respondent No. 4, without inviting applications or providing an opportunity for consideration to the applicants, was necessitated by any compelling administrative circumstance or was otherwise supported by a valid policy.

Learned counsel for the applicants also place reliance upon the representation dated 02.03.2026 submitted by applicant No. 1 to the Director, VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure AR-3. The said representation raises concerns regarding the distribution of beds, operation theatre facilities and OPD arrangements among the units functioning under the SIC. According to the applicants, Unit-HA and Unit-HB together have been allotted 26 beds, as compared with 52 beds under Units I and II, while the former units also have fewer operation theatre tables despite sharing the same OPD days. The said concerns were brought to the notice of the competent authority but were not effectively addressed by respondent No.4. This material has been placed on record as part of the applicants' grievance regarding the functioning of the SIC under the impugned appointment. The legality of the appointment, however, is required to be determined independently on the basis of the applicable rules, the selection procedure and the relevant contemporaneous records.

Learned counsel reiterated that the material facts concerning the absence of an advertisement, the non-invitation of applications, the alleged departure from the previous practice and the constitution and functioning of the Screening Committee are matters capable of verification from the official records maintained by the official respondents themselves. The official respondents are, therefore, under an obligation to produce the relevant records and place the actual decision-making process before this Tribunal, rather than seek to sustain the impugned appointment through general and unsubstantiated assertions.

With regard to the official respondents' contentions concerning the alleged Screening Committee meeting dated 30.08.2023, the applicants’ counsel submitted that the relevant file, notings, minutes, recommendations and approval of the competent authority are essential for an effective adjudication of the controversy. The applicants’ counsel prayed for a direction to respondent No. 1 to produce the complete records relating to the said meeting and the appointment of respondent No. 4, as the production of these records is necessary to ascertain whether the Committee applied any pre-existing criteria, whether the claims of the applicants and other eligible candidates were considered, and whether the recommendation and consequential appointment were founded upon relevant and objective considerations. Any claim of confidentiality or administrative discretion cannot, by itself, dispense with the need for judicial scrutiny of the legality of the impugned decision, subject to any legally sustainable ground for withholding a particular record.

Learned counsel for the applicants reiterated that their challenge is directed against the legality and fairness of the process adopted for appointment of respondent No. 4 and is not founded solely upon an assertion of superior seniority. The central issue is whether the official respondents followed the applicable Recruitment Rules, the relevant SOP or other valid instructions, and a fair and transparent procedure consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents' failure to disclose the governing framework and the material forming the basis of the decision warrants examination of the original records by this Tribunal.

Lastly, learned counsel argued that the defence raised by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 does not satisfactorily answer the material grounds urged in the instant OA. As such, the present OA deserves to be allowed by this Tribunal.

Learned counsel also contended that the submissions of Respondent No.4 regarding his association with the Sports Injury Unit since its inception and his alleged status as a founding member of the Centre were wholly irrelevant to the legality of his appointment as Director. HeHe argued that merely because an officer or doctor had been associated with the establishment or development of a Government institution did not confer upon him any automatic or preferential right to occupy its highest administrative post. Every appointment to a public post was required to be made in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules or, in their absence, the relevant Government policy and a lawful selection procedure. The respondents could not adopt a pick-and-choose approach in making such appointments, as the same would offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel further submitted that Respondent No. 4 had, at the relevant time, been working as a contractual doctor when the Sports Injury Centre was established. He also argued that the expression founding member had no recognised nomenclature in the relevant Government service framework and could not, by itself, confer any legal entitlement to appointment as Director. The fact that Respondent No. 4 had contributed to the development of the Centre, even if accepted, could not dispense with the requirement of a lawful and transparent selection process.

Refuting the contention that the SIC was a Centre of Excellence and could not be equated with an ordinary hospital department, learned counsel submitted that every specialised department of a Government hospital had its own importance, professional expertise and contribution to public healthcare. The specialised nature of the Centre could not be invoked to justify departure from the constitutional requirements of fairness, equality and non-arbitrariness. In this regard, he argued that the applicants, being regularly appointed senior doctors with the requisite qualifications and experience, could not be denied fair consideration for the post of Director merely on the ground that Respondent No. 4 had been associated with the Centre for a longer period.

With regard to the recruitment of Assistant Professors in the SIC pursuant to the Gazette Notification dated 07.04.2014 and the subsequent UPSC advertisement, learned counsel submitted that the existence of such a recruitment process was not disputed. However, the assertion that Respondent No. 4 had been appointed as Assistant Professor pursuant to the said advertisement was specifically disputed. According to the applicants, Respondent No. 4 had been appointed in 2008, whereas the applicants had been appointed in 2007 and were, therefore, senior to him. Learned counsel also contended that the averments made by Respondent No. 4 in this regard were incorrect and could not be relied upon to establish his superior service status or entitlement to appointment as Director.

Learned counsel further submitted that the applicants possessed the requisite qualifications and experience in the field of Sports Injury and Sports Medicine. Neither the official Respondents nor Respondent No. 4 had established that the applicants lacked the necessary experience or that their appointments or postings to the SIC were illegal. Then, he argued that Respondent No. 4 could not seek to undermine the applicants’ eligibility or suitability merely by asserting that he possessed greater experience or had been associated with the Centre from an earlier date.

Learned counsel strongly disputed the contention that seniority was not a relevant consideration in the appointment of the Director, Sports Injury Centre, and submitted that seniority had consistently been the principal criterion followed in appointments to the post of Director of the SIC and the Central Institute of Orthopaedics at VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital. He argued that the absence of an advertisement in earlier appointments or the alleged practice of making appointments through a Selection Committee could not, by itself, validate the impugned appointment if the applicable Recruitment Rules, Government policy or prescribed selection procedure had not been followed. The applicants’ learned counsel contended that the respondents could not rely upon an alleged past practice to justify an appointment made without lawful authority or without fair consideration of the claims of eligible and senior officers.

Learned counsel further submitted that Respondent No. 4’s reliance upon his longer experience in the SIC and the applicants’ subsequent transfers to the Centre was misconceived. The applicants’ postings had been ordered by the competent authority in accordance with law, and their service and experience could not be disregarded merely because they had joined the Centre after Respondent No.4. Learned counsel contended that the assertion that the applicants were merely additional faculty members or extra faculty had no legal basis capable of defeating their claim to fair consideration for the post in question. The applicants’ counsel reiterated that applicants were senior to Respondent No.4 and possessed the requisite professional qualifications and experience.

Learned counsel also objected to Respondent No. 4’s attempt to assess and compare the applicants’ ability, eligibility, suitability and professional merit with his own. He submitted that Respondent No. 4, being a contesting private respondent, could not assume the role of the official Respondents or determine the applicants’ service rights and professional standing. Learned counsel alleged that Respondent No. 4 appeared to be advancing grounds that had not been specifically taken by the official Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Learned counsel also contended that the applicants’ claims were required to be considered fairly by the competent authority in accordance with the governing rules and policy, rather than being rejected on the basis of assertions made by Respondent No.4 in his personal defence.

Learned counsel further asserted that the applicants had scientific publications and innovations equal to or greater in number than those of Respondent No.4. Learned counsel also submitted that both applicants were the only supervisors of the Ph.D. programme in Sports Medicine, apart from supervising candidates pursuing M.D. in Sports Medicine. Applicant No. 2, in particular, was stated to have acquired experience in the field of arthroscopy much before Respondent No.4. On this basis, learned counsel disputed the suggestion that Respondent No.4 possessed demonstrably superior professional merit or experience warranting his appointment over the applicants without due consideration of their respective credentials.

Refuting the claim of Respondent No. 4 that he had single-handedly shifted the SIC from its old premises to the new 155-bedded facility and made it operational by January 2024, learned counsel submitted that the exercise had been undertaken by the previous Directors, namely, Dr. R.K. Arya and Dr. L.G. Krishna, under the supervision of the Medical Superintendent, VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital, and with the active guidance of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS). Learned counsel also contended that several committees had been constituted for technical specifications, technical evaluation, non-medical equipment, manpower, inspection and installation. Respondent No. 4 was not the Chairman of any of these Committees and, prior to his appointment as Director, was not even functioning as a Unit Head. Learned counsel accordingly disputed the claim that the shifting and operationalisation of the new Centre established Respondent No. 4’s independent administrative achievements or demonstrated that he possessed the requisite prior administrative experience for appointment to the post of Director.

Learned counsel further denied the assertion that Respondent No.4 had treated the applicants fairly or had demonstrated exemplary administrative conduct by allotting separate units to them. He contended that Respondent No. 4’s claim to be a good and benevolent administrator was self-serving and did not reflect the actual circumstances prevailing in the Centre. The applicants reiterated that they were senior to Respondent No.4 and possessed superior or comparable professional and academic credentials.

In particular, learned counsel alleged that Respondent No. 4 had acted beyond his authority by declaring himself the Head of Sports Medicine vide Office Order dated 16.01.2024, placed on record as Annexure AR-1. According to the applicants, the power to make such a declaration vested either in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare or in the Director, VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital, and Respondent No. 4 could not assume such authority on his own. Learned counsel further alleged that Respondent No. 4 had discriminated against the applicants in the distribution of units and had failed to comply with the directions issued by the Director, VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital, as reflected in Annexure AR-3 to the rejoinder filed in response to the counter-reply of the official Respondents.

Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (Constitution Bench), reported as 1967 SCC OnLine SC 16, para 8, 9;

State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal & Ors. reported as MANU/SC/034 1/2016 para 16-30;

State of Orissa Vs. Mamta Mohanty reported as 2011 (3) SCO 436, para 35-38, 56-57, 59;

Renu & Others Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, reported as 2014 (14) SCC 50, para 5, 12-17; and

National Fertilizers Ltd. & Others Vs. Somvir Singh, reported as 2006 (5) SCC 493, para 20-22 & 25.

Learned counsel also submitted that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the following two coordinate Bench judgments of this Tribunal:

Order/judgment dated 06.07.2018 passed in O.A. No.2623/2016 titled as Dr. Anita Jain Vs. UOI & Anr., by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, paras 12;

Order/judgment dated 29.04.2025 passed in O.A. No. 1691/2024 titled as Pushplata Vs. UOI & Ors. by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal.

On the strength of above relied upon judgments, learned counsel submitted that in the case of selection of HoDs of various departments including other appointments, SOP has been pre-notified and there is no reason of justification as to why the rule or policy should not be followed in case of the appointment of Director, SIC. Further, the contention of the Respondent No.l to 3 that the considerationn was by the senior authorities is of no substance in as much as there is violation of Article 14 & 16 and such appointment is without following due process of law 1.e. no advertisement, no application, no criteria, no policy or pre-laid down norm. Any consideration by any authority is per-se illegal and nullity in the eyes of law. Further, once it is admitted fact that no fair procedure was followed in the appointment of Respondent No.4, the same is illegal per-se. Such appointment cannot survive merely because the official respondents are competent. It is settled law that it is the constitutional obligation of all courts to enforce the rule of law and it must not perpetuate illegal appointments based on sympathy.

Lastly, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the appointment of Respondent No. 4 as Director, Sports Injury Centre, had been made without following a lawful and transparent procedure and without fairly considering the claims of the applicants, who were stated to be senior and professionally qualified. He also contended that the respondents could not justify the impugned appointment merely by relying upon Respondent No. 4’s earlier association with the Centre, his claimed administrative accomplishments or the alleged practice of appointment through a Selection Committee. Learned counsel therefore prayed that the impugned appointment order dated 31.10.2023 be quashed and set aside.

In furtherance of the aforenoted recommendations of the Screening Committee, the matter was taken up for approval of the competent authority by the official respondents, the noting of the same has also been produced by the official respondents, in Note # 434 dated 27.09.2023 09:09 am of the Chairperson of the said Committee noted as under:

A perusal of the minutes of the Screening Committee and the subsequent noting dated 27.09.2023 raises a material concern as to whether a sufficiently broad and objective exercise was undertaken to identify and assess all eligible officers for appointment to the post of Director, SIC. Although the minutes record that a combined list of SAG-level officers belonging to the Teaching and Non-Teaching Sub-cadres of CHS in the speciality of Orthopaedics, posted at the identified Central Government hospitals and institutes and below 62 years of age, was considered, they do not disclose the names of the officers included in the said list, the number of officers considered, the eligibility parameters applied to each officer, or the comparative assessment on the basis of which Respondent No. 4 was found suitable. More significantly, the noting dated 27.09.2023 appears to place substantial emphasis on Respondent No. 4's association with SIC since its inception, his reputation as a surgeon in the field of sports injuries and his experience, and proceeds to describe him as the “most eligible candidate”. However, the noting does not, by itself, establish that the other officers meeting the prescribed eligibility conditions were subjected to a comparative assessment on uniform and objectively ascertainable parameters before such a conclusion was reached.

We are conscious that appointment to an administrative or leadership position in a specialised medical institution may legitimately involve consideration of specialised experience, professional competence, administrative ability and institutional requirements, and that seniority in the general cadre cannot, by itself, be treated as determinative where the appointment is based on suitability. Nevertheless, the consideration of such factors must be demonstrably fair, consistent and non-arbitrary. The fact that Respondent No. 4 had been associated with SIC since its inception may be a relevant consideration, but it cannot be treated as a substitute for consideration of other eligible officers in accordance with a fair and transparent procedure. Equally, the assertion that Respondent No. 4 possessed the requisite experience does not, on its own, establish that the candidature of all other eligible officers was duly evaluated. In the absence of particulars demonstrating the scope of the field of consideration and the comparative criteria actually applied, the material presently reproduced does not sufficiently establish that an appropriate number of eligible officers were considered before Respondent No. 4 was recommended. The official respondents are not able to demonstrate from the contemporaneous record that the field of consideration was appropriately constituted and that the recommendation resulted from a genuine assessment of suitability, rather than from a conclusion founded principally on the prior identification of one officer as the preferred candidate.