L M NATH Vs. DRS K KACKER
LAWS(SC)-1995-11-42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on November 08,1995

L.M.NATH Appellant
VERSUS
S.K.KACKER Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

L P AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

RAM NIWAS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-5-29] [REFERRED TO]
SONALIKA BHARGAVA VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2020-8-121] [REFERRED TO]
MUKUL RANJAN TARAT VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-1998-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
BISWAJIT SARMA VS. GAUHATI UNIVERSITY [LAWS(GAU)-2022-3-77] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT SINGH BAJWA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR [LAWS(P&H)-2009-8-285] [REFERRED]
DOKI P VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2003-3-137] [REFERRED TO]
DEOBRAT SAHAY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2003-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
T PADMA FORMERLY DISTRICT JUDGE VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2008-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
MOHANLAL KRISHNA KUMAR VS. CUTTACK MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(ORI)-1996-8-4] [REFERRED T0]
LT COL RETD APN SINHA VS. ONGC LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2005-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
MAN VISHRAM SHUKLA VS. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS BAHRAICH [LAWS(ALL)-2007-4-379] [REFERRED TO]
MR. NASIRUDDIN HAIDER VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS [LAWS(PAT)-2018-12-67] [REFERRED TO]
KRUPABEN B. TRIVEDI VS. GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT AND ANR. [LAWS(GJH)-2000-7-86] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)We are conscious of the fact that the impugned order is only an ad interim one passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on October 19,1995. But keeping in view the importance of administration of All India Institute of Medical Sciences which is a premier and prestigious institution in the country, its smooth functioning and efficient management would be the primary and sole concern of every one including Judiciary when its intervention is deemed expedient. The Director remains in day to-day management of the institute and must and ought to be a dynamic person, efficient and of sterling character capable to carry with him all concerned in not only proper, efficient and prompt manner to the needy patients thronging in thousands daily for treatment but also capable to mobilise needed resources to fruition, the objectives of the institute. Bearing this pragmatic consideration and not pedanic nor legalistic orientation, this Court in L. P. Agarwal v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1872 held that even outsiders are eligible to be considered for selection as Director. We think that instead of prolonging the uncertainty in its administration, instead of relegating the authorities to go to the High Court to have the matter decided, it would be better to dispose of the interlocutory application C.M. No. 6473/95 in Civil writ petition No. 3865/95 dated October 19, 1995 at this stage itself. We have heard counsel; on both the sides in extenso.
(3.)It is not in dispute that Prof. S. K. Kacker was appointed by selection as Director on October 15,1990 for a term of 5 years and on the even date he had assumed the charge. His term as Director stood expired on October 14,1995. It is also not in dispute that on June 5, 1995 the Institute Body which is the apex body of the Institution decided to select a Director as per the procedure contemplated under its Rules and appointed a Select Committee to set in motion the process for selection of the Director. At that point of time, the request for reappointment by Dr. Kacker also came up for consideration. It was decided that no extension as Director could be made. Instead his case may also be considered along with others for fresh appointment as Director, Since its confirmations now stayed by the High Court in another pending writ petition, except with leave of the Court, they did not go through the process of selecting the director before the term of Dr. Kacker expired on October 14, 1995.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.