Qualification cannot be ignored when appointing Medical College dean or Director: Karnataka HC
Dharwad: Amid the controversy regarding the appointment of the Director of Haveri Institute of Medical Sciences, the Dharwad bench of Karnataka High Court recently upheld the transfer order of the previous director who was allegedly appointed for the post without having the required qualifications.
Although the doctor, who was sent back to his original Post of Professor of the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, from the Post of First Director of Haveri Institute of Medical Sciences, challenged the transfer order, the HC bench refused to compromise with the qualification required for being appointed as the post of Director and rejected the plea.
The HC bench comprising Justice M. Nagaprasanna opined that "The qualification cannot be given a gobye on any circumstance whether it is for the appointment of first Dean cum Director or the subsequent Dean cum Director" and pointed out that the petitioner doctor did not have a qualification of five years as Professor and therefore he cannot be appointed as the Director of an Institute.
Dismissing the plea, the bench noted, "In the light of the petitioner falling short of qualification of five years as Professor, in the considered view of the Court is ineligible to hold the post of Director of the Institute."
The petitioner doctor was appointed as a Lecturer in KIMS, Hubballi on 25.02.1999, and at intermittent intervals, he was promoted to higher echelons of Office, first as an Assistant professor in 2005 and later as an Associate Professor in 2010. He was made a Professor with effect from 2019.
After about three years of serving as a Professor in KIMS, Hubballi, he was deputed as Special Officer for the establishment of new Medical College at Haveri. Thereafter, he was appointed on 12.07.2022 as the Director of Haveri Institute of Medical Sciences for a period of four years or until further orders. Accordingly, the petitioner assumed charge and was functioning as the Director of HIMS.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported on the issue regarding the qualification of the director of Haveri Institute of Medical Sciences (HIMS). The controversy started after a Right to Information (RTI) reply revealed that the director only had three years of academic experience at the time of joining the post of Director at HIMS.
As per the norms, it is mandatory for a candidate to have a minimum of five years of service experience in the post of professor in any department of a recognised medical institute to be termed eligible for the post of Director.
However, after obtaining the academic documents of HIMS Director Dr. Uday Mulagund, RTI and social activist Satish Maladakar came to know that the doctor had completed only three years of service on July 12, 2022, when he was appointed in the post of Director.
Thereafter, activist Maladakar submitted a petition to the Chief Minister of Karnataka and Medical education minister of the State and alleged that Dr. Mulagund was ineligible for the director's post. "As per norms, a candidate should have completed five years of service as a professor in any department of a recognised medical institution. However, Dr Mulagund had been a professor only for three years at the time of his appointment," claimed Maladakar.
Meanwhile, on 12.09.2023, another doctor was posted to the petitioner's place and the petitioner doctor was sent back to his post as the Professor at KIMS, Hubballi. Challenging this order, the petitioner doctor approached the Karnataka High Court.
Previously, while entertaining the plea, the HC bench had granted an interim order of stay on 13.09.2023 against the impugned order by which another doctor was appointed as the Institute head. Consequently, the other doctor, whose transfer was stayed, filed his objections.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the appointment of the petitioner was by the Government and the services of the petitioner put together, he would come within the ambit of being qualified to hold the Post of Director. The conditions of appointment qua qualification would become necessary only for direct recruitment and not to an appointee to get appointed at the hands of the State Government in terms of the Rules, argued the counsel and submitted that the transfer order was violative of the order appointing the petitioner as it was for a period of four years or until further orders.
On the other hand, the counsel for the other doctor argued that although the Government has the power of first appointment, it cannot be done without qualification. It was pointed out that the petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of Director in terms of the Rules/Bylaws of the Institution as also the Regulations of the MCI for teaching personnel.
The counsel for the State also supported this argument and sought dismissal of the plea arguing that the petitioner is not qualified to hold the post. Meanwhile, the petitioner's counsel argued that the transfer order does not speak of the petitioner not being qualified to hold the post of the Director and it is a plain and simple order of transfer, which is unsustainable.
While considering the matter, the HC bench noted that the service conditions or the recruitment and other Traits of recruitment are governed by the Haveri Institute of Medical Sciences, Haveri Rules & Regulations, 2017
"Regulation 18(1) permits the Government to appoint the first Dean cum Director after getting satisfied as to his / her qualifications and eligibility specified in Clause (3). The Dean cum Director who is appointed therefore cannot be appointed dehors qualification. The qualification prescribed for appointment to the Post of Director is in terms of the minimum qualification of Teachers in the Medical Institution Regulations of the Medical Council of India," noted the bench.
Referring to the required academic qualifications to be appointed as the Director of the Institute, the bench noted that the required qualifications mention that the candidate "Should possess the recognized postgraduate medical qualification and other academic qualification from a recognized institution with a minimum of ten years’ teaching experience as Professor/ Associate Professor/ Reader in a medical college / Instt. Out of which atleast five years should be as Professor in a department. Preference for these appointments may be given to the Heads of the Departments."
At this outset, the HC bench observed,
"For an appointment to the Post of Dean cum Director one should have the minimum of ten years of teaching experience as Professor, Associate Professor or reader, out of which atleast five years “should be as a Professor” in any Department. If the qualification of the petitioner is considered on the bedrock of what is prescribed by MCI or what is found in the Rules and Regulations, the petitioner would not satisfy the qualification as is necessary (supra)."
Pointing out that the petitioner lacked the required qualification of a minimum of five years as a Professor, the bench noted,
"The petitioner does have ten years of teaching experience, but lacks minimum five years out of that, as Professor. As the petitioner is appointed as Professor only in the year 2019 and is yet to complete five years falling short of one year as Professor for him to become eligible to be appointed as a Director of the Institute. The Governments’ right to appoint the Dean cum Director of an Institution which is newly born, would not mean that such Dean cum Director, who would be appointed has no qualification to hold the post."
The bench clarified that the qualification cannot be compromised under any circumstances whether it is for the appointment of first Dean cum Director or the subsequent Dean cum Director.
The only difference between the first Dean cum Director and the subsequent Dean cum Director is that the first Dean cum Director would be appointed without calling for applications, from eligible candidates and the subsequent Dean cum Director would be appointed by calling for applications from the eligible candidates as a regular process of recruitment, the bench explained.
Observing that the petitioner doctor falls short of the qualification of five years as a Professor, the bench rejected his plea opining it to be "lacking in merit".
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/karnataka-hc-institute-director-224736.pdf
