In a significant case concerning the appointment of Heads of Departments (HoDs) in medical colleges, the Supreme Court of India has sought the intervention of the National Medical Commission (NMC) to address whether HoD positions should be rotational in nature or seniority-based. The matter arose from a dispute between senior professors at the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and the institution itself, which introduced new bye-laws for the rotation of HoDs.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Dr. Anche Narayana Rao Dattatri and Dr. Rajendra Choudhary, senior professors at KIMS in Hubbali, were appointed as HoDs of the Pharmacology and General Surgery departments, respectively, following seniority-based regulations laid out under Regulation 3.10 of the NMC’s Teachers Eligibility Qualifications 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, in December 2023, KIMS introduced new bye-laws mandating a rotational policy for HoDs, requiring professors to serve in the role for only three years before being rotated to other duties within the department. Following the introduction of these bye-laws, the petitioners were instructed to relinquish their HoD positions, which they contested as being contrary to the statutory regulations.
The Legal Battle
The petitioners filed writ petitions before the Karnataka High Court, arguing that the HoD post is an administrative position and, therefore, must be governed by NMC’s seniority-based regulations. Initially, the single judge of the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, affirming that the HoD role indeed requires seniority-based appointments.
However, this ruling was overturned by the Karnataka High Court’s division bench, which held that the HoD position is not an administrative role and therefore not subject to the seniority-based appointment regulation. The division bench argued that KIMS’ new rotational policy, aimed at promoting diversity of thought and innovation within departments, was valid. The court also pointed out that Regulation 3.9—which governs the qualifications for HoDs—was more relevant to this matter.
Why the Supreme Court is Involved
The petitioners have now moved the case to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision. In a hearing earlier this week, a bench consisting of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal emphasized the potential nationwide implications of the case, noting that the issue may impact the governance of medical colleges across India.
The petitioners argue that the HoD position involves critical administrative duties, including recruitment, curriculum planning, managing seminars, overseeing admissions and outpatient work, and addressing departmental issues. These responsibilities, they claim, make the HoD role distinctly administrative. Comparing the HoD’s functions to the administrative responsibilities of the Chief Justice of India, they argue that the High Court’s assertion—that the HoD role is non-administrative—is legally untenable.
The petitioners also contend that the retrospective application of KIMS’ new bye-laws, which forced them out of their HoD roles, is arbitrary and unjust.
Why the Supreme Court Seeks NMC’s Intervention
The Supreme Court has recognized the significance of the issue, both for the petitioners and for medical institutions across India. In its order, the bench directed that the National Medical Commission (NMC) be included as a necessary party in the case, as the regulations it enforces have a direct bearing on the appointment process for HoDs in medical colleges nationwide.
The Court noted that the NMC’s input is crucial because its Regulation 3.10 specifically mandates seniority-based appointments to administrative positions like HoDs. As the apex body for regulating medical education and institutions in India, the NMC’s stance on whether the HoD position should be treated as an administrative post subject to seniority regulations or whether institutions can adopt rotational policies will be pivotal.
The Court also observed that the issue may have pan-India ramifications, impacting medical institutions across the country. The NMC’s intervention is expected to clarify whether regulations governing seniority-based appointments can be overridden by institutional bye-laws such as KIMS’ rotation policy.
KIMS’ Rationale Behind the Rotation Policy
KIMS defended its new bye-laws, explaining that the rotation of HoDs was designed to foster diversity of thought and encourage new ideas and innovations within the departments. The hospital argued that the policy would allow different professors to bring fresh perspectives, helping to advance the academic and administrative goals of the institution.
However, the petitioners contend that such a policy undermines the seniority-based hierarchy that is essential for the smooth functioning of a department. They further argue that similar provisions for rotational HoD appointments were initially considered in draft NMC regulations but were dropped after receiving negative feedback from stakeholders.
Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is tasked with addressing several important issues in this case:
Categorization of HoD Position: Is the HoD post an administrative position subject to seniority-based appointment, or is it primarily academic, with rotation being a valid policy?
Precedence of NMC Regulations: Do KIMS’ bye-laws, which introduce the rotation policy, take precedence over NMC’s Regulation 3.10, which mandates seniority-based appointments for administrative posts?
Retrospective Application of Bye-Laws: Is the retrospective application of KIMS’ bye-laws, affecting the petitioners’ tenure, legally valid?
Next Steps
The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for December 4, 2024, and has instructed the NMC to appear and provide its stance on the matter. The involvement of the NMC will be crucial in determining the future of HoD appointments in medical colleges, and whether institutions can implement rotational policies or must adhere to the seniority-based framework outlined by the Commission.
This case raises broader questions about the balance of authority between medical institutions’ autonomy and the regulatory framework established by bodies like the NMC. The decision could have a far-reaching impact, not only for KIMS but also for medical colleges across India, potentially setting a precedent for how HoDs should be appointed in the future.
Get the latest news that takes place in the education sector in India. Find the extensive coverage of various topics including top universities and colleges in India, school reopening, in-depth exam analysis, and more. Stay up to date with The Times of India for the newest updates on CBSE, ICSE, Board exams, competitive exams, date sheet, admit card, exam analysis, results, admissions, colleges, etc.
