Supreme Court Includes NMC in Plea Over HoD Appointments in Medical Colleges

The Supreme Court has directed the inclusion of the National Medical Commission (NMC) in a case concerning the appointment of Heads of Departments (HoDs) in medical colleges. The petitioners argued that the issue has nationwide implications, leading the Court to identify the NMC as a necessary party to the case. The plea was filed by two senior professors at the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubbali (KIMS), serving as HoDs in Pharmacology and General Surgery. Their appointments were based on inter se seniority as mandated by Regulation 3.10 of the Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022, framed by the NMC. This regulation stipulates that administrative posts in government medical institutions must be filled according to vertical seniority.

However, new bye-laws adopted by KIMS on December 22, 2023, introduced a rotation policy for HoD positions, limiting the tenure to three years. Following this, the petitioners were asked to relinquish their posts, a move they contested as being in violation of statutory regulations.

The petitioners initially secured a favorable ruling from the Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench) on February 23, 2024. The single-judge bench held that:

• The HoD position is an administrative role requiring appointments based on seniority under Regulation 3.10.

• Institutional by-laws cannot override statutory regulations.

However, the Division Bench of the High Court overturned this decision on March 21, 2024. It ruled that the HoD role is not administrative and falls outside the purview of Regulation 3.10. Instead, the Court determined that Regulation 3.9, which specifies qualifications for HoD positions, governs such appointments. The bench upheld the rotation policy, emphasizing its potential to foster innovation and diversity of thought within departments.

Key Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is expected to address the following concerns:

1. Whether the High Court erred in categorizing the HoD post as non-administrative.

2. Whether Regulation 3.10 takes precedence over the newly adopted KIMS by-laws.

3. Whether the retrospective application of the by-laws affecting the petitioners’ tenure is valid.

Petitioners’ Contentions

The petitioners have argued that the HoD role encompasses significant administrative responsibilities, including managing recruitment, curriculum planning, supervising admissions, procuring resources, and addressing grievances. They assert that these duties extend beyond teaching and establish the HoD as an administrative position. It further criticizes the High Court’s interpretation, stating that it undermines the hierarchical structure essential for efficient department management.

The petition also highlights that a rotation policy was initially included in the draft NMC regulations but was later dropped following negative feedback from stakeholders. The retrospective application of the KIMS by-laws, which led to the petitioners’ removal, has been described as arbitrary and legally unsustainable.

(Input from various sources)

(Rehash/Ankur Deka/MSM)