Since the High Court has quashed the order of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and given certain directives, it is now high time that the authorities appoint a regular director or make an interim arrangement till the appointment of a new Director.
TFM News Article
The judgment of the High Court of Manipur passed on December 19, 2022 has indeed cleared the unnecessary muddle created over the appointment of Dr L Ranjit Singh, Professor of obstetrics and gynaecology as the Director of the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal.
However, RIMS as an institute is yet to limp back to normalcy at an administrative level despite the court’s judgment. The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India is also yet to appoint a regular Director for the regional institute.
Since the High Court has quashed that order of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and given certain directives, it is now high time that the authorities appoint a regular director or make an interim arrangement following the same directives of the court. The sooner the authorities act, the better it would be for RIMS as leaving a reputed institute without a director would amount to gross negligence of the administrative needs of the institute”.
RIMS and the muddle
RIMS is not new to numerous problems that at times caused stirs in the public realm. Controversies, alleged appointment anomalies, disagreements, and court cases are not new to RIMS. In the present case, the High Court of Manipur took up the issue following a writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 867 of 2022) filed by Dr Hemam Priyosakhi Devi (63) stating that the appointment of Dr L Ranjit Singh as the Director for six months violated set rules of the institute by overlooking seniority list of professors.
There were four official respondents and one private respondent. The first four were—The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India; the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal, through its Director; the Deputy Director (Admn.), Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS); and the private respondent Dr L Ranjit Singh, Professor of Obst & Gynae, RIMS.
The High Court of Manipur heard the case on December 1, 2022 and the matter was disposed of with a judgment on December 19, 2022.
The petitioner’s point of view
BP Sahu, the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner had argued that the writ petition was filed objecting to the order dated October 12, 2022 issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, entrusting additional charge for the post of Director, RIMS to the respondent No. 5, Dr L Ranjit Singh for a period of six months (till April 11, 2023 or till regular appointment of Director). The petition accompanied a prayer for directing the official respondents to Dr Hemam Priyosakhi Devi to hold the post of Director, RIMS, Imphal, pending regular appointment.
Prior to the current case, Dr Ahanthem Santa Singh was appointed to the post of Director, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal on deputation basis for a period of 5 years with effect from November 9, 2018, vide order dated July 28, 2021 issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. Before the completion of his tenure, Dr Ahanthem Santa Singh was repatriated prematurely from the post of Director, RIMS to North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of Health & Medical Sciences, Shillong. Thereafter, the ministry appointed the additional charge for the post of Director, RIMS to Dr L Ranjit Singh for a period of six months or till regular appointment of Director.
However, Dr Hemam Priyosakhi Devi in her petition argued that the additional charge of the Director should be given to the senior most Officer in the next lower grade and since She was the senior most officer in the next lower grade, she is entitled to get such additional charge. Her counsel also argued that entrusting such additional charge of Director, RIMS to Dr L Ranjit Singh, who is junior to her, was “ultra-vires” the applicable rules and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
The petitioner’s counsel BP Sahu submitted that since the post of Director, RIMS became vacant, the process of filling up the vacancy should be done by an arrangement following the provisions under Rule 12(1)(iii) of the Rules and Regulations of RIMS. The rule provides that the officer to whom the additional charge is assigned should be the senior most officer in the next lower grade. According to the inter-se-seniority list of Professors of RIMS procured, the petitioner was at Serial No. 3 while the name of respondent Dr L Ranjit Singh is at No. 5. It was also submitted that since the Professors at Serial No. 1 & 2 of the said inter-se-seniority list have already retired from service, Dr Hemam Priyosakhi Devi is presently the senior most Professor in RIMS.
The counsel of Dr Hemam Priyosakhi Devi submitted that at the time of entrusting the additional charge of Director, RIMS to the respondent Dr L Ranjit Singh, the authorities did not consider the case of the petitioner and other Professors who are senior to him. He termed the appointment “arbitrary and in a pick and choose manner and in complete violation of the provisions of Rule 12(1)(iii) of the Rules and Regulations of RIMS, Imphal”.
The views of the respondents
Meanwhile, Kh Samarjit, Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4, submitted that the inter-se-seniority seniority list of Professors of RIMS relied on by the petitioner is not yet approved by the Executive Council of RIMS and that the inter-se-seniority of Professor of RIMS is yet to be finalized. He dismissed the claim of the petitioner as “unfounded and without any basis”
HS Paonam, the counsel appearing for Dr L Ranjit Singh also submitted that the inter-se-seniority list of Professors of RIMS produced by the petitioner has not been approved by the Executive Committee of RIMS and termed the list as “unauthenticated”.
The High Court’s Judgement
The High Court subsequently examined that the relevant provisions of Rule 12(1)(iii) of the Rules and Regulations of RIMS which says that “the officer to whom the additional charge is assigned is the senior most officer in the next lower grade and is clear from vigilance angle.” The High Court said it was “crystal clear” that the additional charge as Director should be assigned is senior most officer in the next lower grade.
The judgement said, “Faced with such undisputed facts, this Court is constrained to hold that the authorities have entrusted additional charge of Director of RIMS, Imphal to the respondent No. 5 arbitrarily and in a pick and choose manner and in complete violation of the provisions of Rule 12(1)(iii) of the Rules and Regulations of RIMS, Imphal.
The Court observed that the official respondents have acted “arbitrarily and illegally in issuing the impugned order dated 12.10.2022” and quashed and set aside the order. With directions, the present writ petition was disposed of.