POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE Vs. J B DILAWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, abbreviated as PGI (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute') at Chandigarh is an institution of national importance created under a Parliamentary Legislation by that name under the Central Act 51 of 1966. It is a body corporate and in terms of S. 5 of the Act, the Institute consists of 20 members - the Vice-Chancellor of the Punjab University, the Director General of Health Services of India, the Director of the Institute all ex-officio; three representatives of the Central Government to be nominated by the Central Government, one each from the Ministries of Finance, Education and Health and Family Planning; seven persons of whom one is to be 'a non-Medical Scientist representing the Indian Science Congress Association to be nominated by the Central Government; four representatives of the medical faculties of Indian Unversities also to be nominated by the Central Government according to the rules and three Members of Parliament, two being from the Lok Sabha and one from the Rajya Sabha. The Central Government nominates one of the Members other than the Director as the Institute President. The Institute has a Governing Body in which vests the executive power. The Chief Executive Officer is the Director. Ss. 12 and 13 of the Act indicate respectively the objects and functions of the Institute. The Institute has been conceived as one of excellence in its field providing physical and intellectual milieu for young scientists working in the multiple disciplines of medicine, to advance the frontiers of knowledge, to render humane service to the sick and the suffering and to train medical and paramedical manpower.

(2.) One of the several specialities in the Institute was Gastroenterology which started, functioning almost contemporaneously with the opening of the Institute. Necessity for a separate speciality of Paediatric Gastroenterology came to be felt within a few years of working. In 1975, in response to the Central Government's suggestion for drawing up a scheme for up gradation of some of the departments, the Institute proposed the creation of a super speciality in Paediatric Gastronenterology and Clinical Heapatology. On 12th January, 1983, the Academic Council of the Institute approved the creation of the post of Professor of Paediatric Gastroenterology and the other posts of the super speciality. On the 14th of January, 1983, the Governing Body approved the decision of the Council and on the following day the Institute approved the Governing Body's decision. On 25th of February, 1983, the job specifications and qualifications for the post of Professor were settled and on 25th of March, 1983, advertisement inviting applications for that post and other posts was made. In August, 1983, interviews were held. Respondent No. 1, Dr. Dilawari did not apply for the post but applied to the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution on 2nd August, 1983, assailing the creation of the post of Professor, the advertisement for filling up the post and asked for quashing them. In the meantime, Dr. (Mrs.) Saroj Mehta, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2652 of 1984, came to be selected. The High Court by its judgment dated 1st of June, 1984, held that the creation of the post was vitiated as the requirements of the law had not been followed. It also found that the prescription of the qualifications for the said post were tailored to suit the candidature of Dr. Saroj Mehta and the entire exercise leading to the selection of Dr. Mehta was vitiated by mala fides. Three appeals have been filed - Civil Appeal No. 2651 of 1984 by the Institute and the Institute Body, Civil Appeal No. 2652 of 1984 by Dr. Saroj Mehta, the selected candidate and Civil Appeal No. 2653 of 1984 by Dr. S. K. Mehta, the Head of the Department of Gastroenterology of the Institute.

(3.) It is relevant to point out at this stage that Dr. Saroj Mehta happens to be the wife of Dr. S. K. Mehta who is the Professor and Head of the Department of Gastroenterology. This relationship was one of the main aspects pleaded in support of the plea of mala fides.