CAT grants interim relief to RML critical care doctor in HoD appointment dispute

As per the doctor's plea, despite being the Senior-most faculty, her candidature for the HoD post was not recommended.

Filing the plea before the CAT bench, the applicant prayed for quashing or setting aside the circular dated 13.11.2025 issued in pursuance to the rotational policy contained in the OM dated 17.05.2024.

Besides, a request was also made to quash the OMs dated 10.01.2023, 11.04.2023, 28.03.2024, 17.05.2024, and 13.09.2024, issued by the Union Health Ministry, to the extent that they imposed a tenure of three years and restricted holding of the post of Head of the Department to a maximum of two terms of three years each. A direction was also sought for permitting the applicant to continue holding the position of HoD until attaining the age of 62 years and declare that the applicant was entitled to continue to hold the post of HoD, Critical Care Medicine, as an administrative position under the  CHS (Amendment) Rules, 2019 read with the OM dated 19.07.2016, until attaining the age of 62 years.

The applicant also prayed for a directive not to disturb, remove, displace or revert the Applicant from the post of Head of Department and to permit her to continue to discharge duties uninterruptedly until the statutory age of 62, in accordance with the prevailing Rules.

Case Details: 

The counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has completed more than seventeen years of continuous service in Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine in the Central Service. According to the applicant's counsel, the authorities invited applicants to the post of Head of Department (HoD) in three Central Government Hospitals and associated Medical Colleges. However, allegedly, the post of HoD in the Critical Care Medicine was not advertised at that stage.

It was submitted that the applicant, not attaining the statutory upper age limit of 62 years, duly submitted her application, but her candidature was not recommended. According to the counsel, the applicant was the only person who was at level 14, being the senior-most.

The counsel for the applicant referred to Regulation 3 of NMC, TEQ, Regulations, 2022, which láys down the general norms for the appointment of teaching faculty and administrative staff in Medical Institutions.

Regulations 3.9 and 3.10 state the following:

3.9 The Heads of the Departments of broad and super speciality courses shall possess a recognized Postgraduate broad speciality and super speciality degree, as the case may be, in the concerned speciality. This mandatory requirement is relaxedforfive more yearsfrom the date ofnotification of this Regulation to all the Broad and Super Speciality courses which were started after 01 January, 2009.

3.10 Appointments to the administrative posts in Government Institutions including the in-charge arrangements, amongst eligible candidates, shall be on inter se vertical seniority based on date of entry into the institution/Government Service.

On the other hand, the counsel for the authorities opposed the grant of interim relief to the applicant and stated that the post of HoD was such an administrative post at the discretion vested with the executive which cannot be considered a promotional post. He further submitted that the applicant till date has not been removed and the policy decision cannot be interfered in judicial review. Accordingly, he sought two weeks' time to obtain instructions.

CAT Order: 

After considering the arguments by the parties, the Tribunal observed that the aforesaid clause 3.10 is explicitly clear. It further noted,

"Being the senior-most at level 14 position, we fail to understand as to why in an administrative decision the Ministry is interfering concerning cricital care units which may affect the working of premier hospitals like RML etc."

The Tribunal also took note of the organised attempt made by the applicant in moving an application in terms of the Circular mentioned in her plea. Further, it observed that there was no complaint or any adverse comment on behalf of the competent authority regarding the applicant while performing the duties as the HoD since 07.09.2019.

"A forwarding letter issued by the competent authority in respect of the application also speaks of the same, only with a rider that it has to be looked at in terms of the impugned Circular dated 13.11.2025. The applicant has made out a prima facie case inasmuch as clause 3.10 of the above regulation clearly states that appointments to the administrative posts in Government institutions shall be on inter se vertical seniority-based," the Tribunal observed.

Accordingly, granting interim relief to the applicant, the CAT bench ordered,

"In view of the above, as an interim relief, respondents are directed not to give effect to the impugned OMs dated 10.01.2023, 11.04.2023, 28.03.2024, 17.05.2024 and 13.09.2024, qua the applicant."

Further, issuing notice in this regard, the Tribunal has granted four weeks' time to file a reply, mentioning that the applicant shall file a rejoinder thereafter within two weeks.

"Learned counsel for the parties are at liberty to seek modification/vacation of this order, if so required, by way of appropriate remedy. List on 04.02.2026," mentioned the order.

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that a plea concerning the appointment of Heads of Departments (HoDs) in medical colleges was filed before the Supreme Court of India, and the matter is still pending. The plea before the top court bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal challenged the Karnataka High Court's decision holding that HoD is not an administrative post and is not governed by the National Medical Commission's (NMC) regulation on administrative posts.

The matter concerned two senior professors at Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), Hubballi, who were holding the posts of HoD and were instructed to relinquish their HoD positions after KIMS introduced new bylaws in December 2023 that mandated a rotational system for HOD positions. Even though a single judge bench of the Karnataka HC had ruled in favour of the petitioners- professors at KIMS, later a Division bench had overturned this decision.

While the Single-judge bench had relied on Regulation 3.10 of the Teachers Eligibility Qualification in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022, and held that the KIMS' internal byelaws were invalid, the Division bench had ruled that HoD post is not administrative and therefore Regulation 3.10 did not apply. The Division bench upheld the rotation policy, stating that it promotes diversity of thought and innovation.

Issuing an Office Memorandum on 10.01.2023, the Union Health Ministry issued Guidelines for appointment of HoDs in Central Government Hospitals. The OM, which has now been challenged before the CAT Principal bench in Delhi, mentioned that "Selection of HoD shall be for 3 years or till attaining 62 years of age, whichever is earlier. Maximum number of terms as HoD for any person shall be two."

This rule was made applicable for three central government hospitals- Safdarjung Hospital, Dr. RML Hospital, and LHMC Hospital. Meanwhile, for more than a decade, the Faculty Association of PGIMER (FA-PGIMER) and the Faculty Association of AIIMS Delhi have been demanding a fixed-term, rotatory headship system at the institute. Countless committees were formed by the Centre in this regard in the past, and almost every panel has recommended its implementation in principle.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/cat-delhi-principal-bench-312837.pdf

Also Read: HoD appointments of medical teachers- Rotational or Seniority based? SC to decide