DR. L.M. NATH versus DR. S.K. KACKER AND ORS.

DR. L.M. NATH versus DR. S.K. KACKER AND ORS.

The High Court was not justified in intervening and restraining the implementation of the interim appointment of the appellant as Director after the tenure of the respondent had expired, as the President of the Institute was empowered under Rule 7(4) to make such an interim appointment in the absence of an express extension to the outgoing Director. The conscious decision of the Institute Body not to reappoint Respondent No. 1 precluded his claim even as interim Director until a fresh selection was made.

Parties
Appellant: Dr. L.M. Nath; Respondent No. 1: Dr. S.K. Kacker; Respondents: All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 November 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From an Interim Order of the Delhi High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of Delhi High Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Appointment of Director, Tenure of Public Office, Interim Appointment Procedures, Judicial Interference in Administrative Matters
Service Law Appointment of Director Tenure of Public Office Interim Appointment Procedures Judicial Interference in Administrative Matters

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. L.M. Nath

Appellant

Dr. S.K. Kacker

Respondent No. 1

All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From an Interim Order of the Delhi High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in restraining implementation of the appointment of appellant as interim Director and directing Respondent No. 1 to continue as Director after expiry of his term.
  2. 2 Scope of the President's power under Rule 7(4) of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Rules, 1958 regarding interim appointments.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court was not justified in intervening and restraining the implementation of the interim appointment of the appellant as Director after the tenure of the respondent had expired, as the President of the Institute was empowered under Rule 7(4) to make such an interim appointment in the absence of an express extension to the outgoing Director. The conscious decision of the Institute Body not to reappoint Respondent No. 1 precluded his claim even as interim Director until a fresh selection was made.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of Delhi High Court set aside.

Orders

  • The impugned interim order dated October 19, 1995 of the Delhi High Court restraining implementation of the President's order and directing Respondent No. 1 to continue is set aside.
  • No order as to costs.