Are Medical College HoD Appointments Governed By NMC Regulations? Supreme Court Seeks National Medical Commission's View

In a plea concerning the law regarding the appointment of Heads of Departments (HoDs) in medical colleges, the Supreme Court ordered the inclusion of the National Medical Commission (NMC) as a necessary party to the case.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal was dealing with a plea against Karnataka High Court's decision holding that HoD is not an administrative post and is not governed by NMC regulation on administrative posts.

The Court noted petitioners' submission that the issue may have pan-India impact.

“In the facts, learned counsel for the parties submit that the National Medical Commission (NMC) is a necessary party because the issue may have impact PAN India. 2. NMC be joined as a party today. Name of Mr. Prateek Bhatia, learned Standing Counsel, who usually appears for the NMC, be reflected in the Cause List. He may seek instructions and appear on the next date of listing”, the Court stated.

The Court kept the case for further hearing on December 4, 2024.

The petitioners were senior professors at Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubbali (KIMS), serving as HoDs in the Pharmacology and General Surgery departments, respectively. They were appointed to these positions based on inter se seniority, as mandated by Regulation 3.10 of the Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022, framed under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.

Regulation 3.10 provides that administrative posts in government institutions must be filled based on vertical seniority. KIMS adopted new bye-laws on December 22, 2023, introducing a clause for rotating HoD positions among professors every three years. Following this change, the petitioners were directed to relinquish their HoD positions, which they contested as contrary to statutory regulations.

The petitioners initially filed writ petitions before the Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench), which were allowed by the single judge on February 23, 2024. The court held that:

• The post of HoD is an administrative position requiring adherence to seniority-based appointments under Regulation 3.10.
• Bye-laws adopted by KIMS cannot override statutory regulations.

However, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court set aside the single judge's order on March 21, 2024, concluding that the HoD post is not an administrative position and that Regulation 3.10 does not apply to HoD appointments. The Hospital contended that a rotation policy has been adopted to promote diversity of thought, new innovations, which various Professors in the same department may have. The High Court division bench upheld the rotation policy introduced by the KIMS bye-laws. This was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The petition raises the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court erred in categorizing HoD posts as non-administrative.
2. Whether the statutory Regulation 3.10, mandating seniority-based appointments, takes precedence over KIMS bye-laws.
3. Whether the applicability of new bye-laws retrospectively, affecting the petitioners' tenure.

Petitioners' Contentions

The petitioners have argued in the plea that the HoD is responsible for managing the entire department, including administrative tasks such as recruitment, curriculum planning, practical training, organizing seminars, supervising admissions and outpatient work, procuring drugs, addressing complaints, and assigning duties to other doctors. These duties clearly go beyond teaching and establish the HoD as an administrative role.

“Saying that the HoD is not an administrative post is akin to saying that Hon'ble Chief Justice of India does not discharge any function in administrative capacity. High Court observed in Para 17 of the impugned judgment that work assigned to HoD is only incidental to the main teaching work. Going by the High Court's logic, it would mean that the Chief Justice of India mainly discharges judicial functions and even appointment of judges is not function performed in administrative capacity rather it is only incidental to the main judicial function! By no stretch of imagination, the said interpretation given by the High Court can withstand any scrutiny under law”, the petition reads.

The petition contends that the rotation policy violates statutory provisions and undermines the hierarchy necessary for efficient departmental management. “Even the draft NMC regulations had the same clause of appointing HoDs on rotation but owing to negative feedback and comments from stakeholders, the said clause was dropped”, the petition further highlights.

Further, the retrospective application of the bye-laws to oust the petitioners from their positions is arbitrary and legally untenable, the petition states.

Case no. – Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 9419-9423/2024

Case Title – Dr. Anche Narayana Rao Dattatri & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.