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

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal was dealing with a plea challenging Karnataka High Court's decision holding that HoD is not an administrative post and is not governed by NMC regulation on administrative posts.

Background of the Case

Two senior professors at Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) Hubballi, Dr Anche Narayana Rao Dattatri and Dr Rajendra Choudhary, were appointed as Heads of Departments (HODs) for Pharmacology and General Surgery, respectively.

Their appointments were based on seniority, as mandated by Regulation 3.10 of the National Medical Commission's (NMC) Teachers Eligibility Qualification in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022. According to these regulations, administrative posts like HoDs in medical institutions must be filled based on seniority, ensuring that experienced faculty members lead the departments.

However, KIMS introduced new bylaws in December 2023 that mandate a rotational system for HOD positions. This policy requires professors to serve as HODs for a maximum of three years, after which they are rotated to other duties within the department.

Following the introduction of these bylaws, the petitioners were instructed to relinquish their HoD positions. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners filed writ petitions seeking relief.

A single judge of the Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench) ruled in favor of the petitioners on February 23, 2024, basing the decision on Regulation 3.10 of the Teachers Eligibility Qualification in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022.

This regulation, framed under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, mandates that appointments to administrative posts in government institutions should follow inter se vertical seniority based on the date of entry into service.

The Judge determined that KIMS' internal byelaws, which permitted deviation from this regulation, were invalid, and ordered the petitioners to retain their HoD positions.

The respondents, dissatisfied with the Single Judge’s ruling, filed appeals challenging the decision. They argued that:

1. The National Medical Commission Act, 2019 primarily governs medical education and the qualifications of teaching staff, rather than appointments to HoD positions.
2. Section 57 of the Act allows for the creation of regulations, including the Teachers Eligibility Qualification in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022, which differentiate between administrative posts and academic HoD positions.
3. Regulation 3.10 pertains only to administrative posts, while Regulation 3.9 governs HoD appointments, which do not explicitly mandate adherence to seniority.

The respondents also emphasized that HoD positions are primarily academic, with incidental administrative duties, and argued that rotational appointments promote diversity and innovation within departments.

However, a Division Bench of the High Court overturned this decision on March 21, 2024, ruling that the HoD post is not administrative and Regulation 3.10 does not apply. The bench upheld the rotation policy, stating that it promotes diversity of thought and innovation.

The division bench highlighted the distinction made in the regulations between administrative posts and HoD positions:

• Regulation 3.9 specifies qualifications for HoD appointments but does not mandate seniority as a criterion.
• Regulation 3.10, which mandates seniority-based appointments, applies only to administrative posts.

The court also considered the broader purpose of KIMS' byelaws, which provide for rotational appointments to encourage diverse perspectives within departments. The court found no statutory prohibition against such a system and determined that the bylaws did not conflict with the regulations under the National Medical Commission Act.

Furthermore, the court observed that the HoD position is not a promotion but a temporary leadership role among equals, with no additional salary benefits. Moreover, judicial intervention in such matters should be limited to addressing arbitrariness or illegality, which was not evident in the given case.

The appellate court concluded that the learned Single Judge erred in treating HoD positions as administrative posts subject to Regulation 3.10. Consequently, the court set aside the earlier judgment and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners.

This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The petition raised the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court erred in categorizing HoD posts as non-administrative.
2. Whether the statutory Regulation 3.10, mandating seniority-based appointments, takes precedence over KIMS bylaws.
3. Whether the applicability of new bylaws retrospectively, affecting the petitioners' tenure.

Petitioners' Contentions

The petitioner doctors have argued in the plea that the HoD is responsible for managing the entire department, including administrative tasks such as recruitment, curriculum planning, practical training, organizing seminars, supervising admissions and outpatient work, procuring drugs, addressing complaints, and assigning duties to other doctors. These duties clearly go beyond teaching and establish the HoD as an administrative role.

The petition reads, “Saying that the HoD is not an administrative post is akin to saying that Hon'ble Chief Justice of India does not discharge any function in administrative capacity. High Court observed in Para 17 of the impugned judgment that work assigned to HoD is only incidental to the main teaching work. Going by the High Court's logic, it would mean that the Chief Justice of India mainly discharges judicial functions and even appointment of judges is not function performed in administrative capacity rather it is only incidental to the main judicial function! By no stretch of imagination, the said interpretation given by the High Court can withstand any scrutiny under law."

The petition contends that the rotation policy violates statutory provisions and undermines the hierarchy necessary for efficient departmental management. The petition further highlighted; "Even the draft NMC regulations had the same clause of appointing HoDs on rotation but owing to negative feedback and comments from stakeholders, the said clause was dropped."

The petition further added that the retrospective enforcement of the bye-laws, which resulted in the petitioners being removed from their positions, is both arbitrary and legally indefensible.

Noting that the matter could have nationwide implications, the apex court directed that the National Medical Commission (NMC) be included as a necessary party in the case. The court noted;

“In view of the facts, the learned counsel for the parties submitted that the National Medical Commission (NMC) is a necessary party as the issue could have a pan-India impact. NMC is to be joined as a party today. The name of Mr. Prateek Bhatia, learned Standing Counsel for the NMC, should be reflected in the Cause List. He may seek instructions and appear on the next date of listing.”

The hearing is scheduled for December 4, 2024.

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that stating that a Medical Superintendent of an Autonomous Medical Institution cannot be given an additional charge of the Head of Department, a single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court had quashed an official memorandum issued by Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences appointing its Medical Superintendent as the in-charge HOD of the ENT Department.

In March, the High Court bench comprising Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum further directed the medical college to comply with the National Medical Commission (NMC) norms regarding the separation of the administrative and clinical roles within the medical college.

To view the original SC order click on the link below: