OM PRAKASH Vs. DIRECTOR AIIMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in these petitions is whether the personell engaged by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as AIIMS) from time to time in sundry 'projects' undertaken by it are entitled to regular employment with it. These persons have worked for periods varying from one year to over fifteen years. In respect of some of them who were engaged as 'Researchers' for periods of over twelve years, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had in Dr, V.L. Chandra vs. All India Institute , of Medical Others, (1990) 3 SCC 38 ensured their regularisation despite the argument of the' AIIMS that they had been appointed only to projects and were not entitled to continue in service after the completion of the project. To appreciate the views of the Apex Court, the relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:

(2.) In these petitions my Learned Brother Madan B. Lokur, J. had on 23/5/2000 ordered that "the services of the petitioners can be dispensed with if, they are, not required in some other projects or if the projects in which they are working are not extended." The understanding of my learned brother was palpably complete and in conformity with the approach adopted by the Apex Court, As I see it since the AIIMS is primarily and principally engaged in undertaking projects of various kinds, the Petitioners can therefore quite easily be accommodated or engaged in another projects in the event that the one in which they are presently engaged comes to an end. Dr. Surat Singh, learned counsel for the Petitioner informs that in 1999-2000 as per the Annual Report of the AIIMS it had received grants amounting to Rs.11,20,00,000.00 for research projects, whereas the administrative budget was less then Rs.50,00,000.00. It is in this context that the interim orders on which the applicants/AIIMS are incorrectly relying, were passed. Otherwise there would scarcely have been any need for my learned Brother to mention that the services of the Petitioners could be ended if they were not required in some other project

(3.) The situation is graver then that which is discernible understandable at the first glance. The present litigation is not the first batch of writ petitions filed against the Respondents on the question of engagement of persons to projects undertaken by the AIIMS. In 1990 several Petitioners who were working as "Researchers' had articulated their grievances before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The same reasoning as has been laid before me was also put before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the AIIMS, a decade earlier. None of the petitions were rejected or dismissed, what is startling is that even after making a submission before the Hon'ble Supreme court that these Researchers were employed by the then Officers of the AIIMS from project to project and de hors the Rules, the same procedure has again been regularly adopted by AIIMS for almost a decade afterwards. Despite making these specific submissions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the AIIMS has considered it appropriate to continue to engage persons project-wise- Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents has submitted that after 1/12/1999 no recruitment/engagement has been carried out de hors the Rules. What cannot be overlooked is the fact that for the ten previous years the same policy which was sought to be assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed. It is palpably evident that the words of the Respondents do not match with their actions. I perceive an effort to mislead the Court. Atleast after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the AIIMS should have desisted from engaging persons project-wise, since this practice is irreconcilably contrary to their stand before the Apex Court. The immediate consequences of the action of the Respondents' is that there are several Petitioners now constrained to seek the protection of the Court, whose services have commenced in the period post 1990. Inasmuch as affidavits have been filed on behalf of the AIIMS painting a picture totally different to that which actually exists, a piquant and awkward situation has arisen. It can perhaps be set to rest by this judgement.