K. SHEKAR versus V. INDIRAMMA AND ORS.

K. SHEKAR versus V. INDIRAMMA AND ORS.

Appointment to an unadvertised post, and subsequent alteration of its tenure and absorption via corrigendum without re-advertisement, violated Articles 14 and 16. Power to relax eligibility criteria cannot be used to do away with them altogether. The absorption agreement with ICMR could not override direct recruitment requirements under NIMHANS rules. High Court was correct in setting aside the appointment.

Parties
Appellant: K. Shekar; Respondent No. 1: V. Indiramma; Appellant: National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 355 of 2000 / Supreme Court Appellate (from Karnataka High Court W.a. No. 730 of 1999)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; High Court decision affirmed with modification.
Legal Topics
Appointment Validity, Advertisement of Posts, Direct Recruitment, Cadre and Recruitment Rules, Absorption Agreements, Judicial Review of Educational Institutions
Service Law Constitutional Law Appointment Validity Advertisement of Posts Direct Recruitment Cadre and Recruitment Rules Absorption Agreements Judicial Review of Educational Institutions

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K. Shekar

Appellant

V. Indiramma

Respondent No. 1

National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS)

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 355 of 2000 / Supreme Court Appellate (from Karnataka High Court W.a. No. 730 of 1999)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appointment to the post of Lecturer without advertisement was valid under NIMHANS rules
  2. 2 Whether the power to relax eligibility can override statutory criteria of appointment
  3. 3 Whether subsequent change of appointment from temporary to permanent without advertisement was valid

Ratio Decidendi

Appointment to an unadvertised post, and subsequent alteration of its tenure and absorption via corrigendum without re-advertisement, violated Articles 14 and 16. Power to relax eligibility criteria cannot be used to do away with them altogether. The absorption agreement with ICMR could not override direct recruitment requirements under NIMHANS rules. High Court was correct in setting aside the appointment.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; High Court decision affirmed with modification.

Orders

  • Appointment of appellant as Assistant Professor in NIMHANS set aside.
  • Appellant's actual experience to be considered in any future applications for Assistant Professor post at NIMHANS.