09 August 2024 Dispute with employer >> Workplace/ Professional Related  

In a recent legal dispute between Dr. Dilip Rambhau Shende v/s AIIMS & Others, the petitioner challenged an order from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated March 9, 2022, which endorsed the appointment of Dr. Lokesh Kashyap as the Head of the Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, effective March 1, 2022. The petitioner, who sought to be appointed as the HoD due to his seniority, argued that Dr. Kashyap, promoted to Professor a year after him, should not have been chosen over him.

The petitioner’s position is rooted in the assertion that he was promoted to Professor on July 1, 2007, while Dr. Kashyap’s promotion came a year later, on July 1, 2008. He contended that, based on seniority, he should have been appointed as the HoD. The contention was bolstered by various communications and regulations including a memorandum from March 31, 1983, and subsequent orders and memoranda that outlined the seniority and administrative controls between the main AIIMS department and its affiliated centers.

The dispute further complicates due to differing interpretations of seniority lists and departmental guidelines. The AIIMS argued that the petitioner, though senior in general, was not considered part of the core faculty in the Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain Medicine & Critical Care as per their current administrative structure, which necessitates a direct appointment from the main department for such roles.

The CAT ruled that, despite the petitioner’s seniority in general, the appointment of Dr. Kashyap was valid based on departmental guidelines. The Tribunal decided that Dr. Kashyap, being deployed directly in the department, rightfully occupied the HoD position, while the petitioner’s administrative responsibilities should remain with the Chief of the Centre.

However, the Tribunal's order imposed restrictions on Dr. Kashyap’s administrative authority over the petitioner, including his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), leave approvals, and other administrative permissions. This decision highlighted the administrative and legal complexities of managing departmental roles across various centers and departments.

The court ultimately overturned the Tribunal's decision, directing AIIMS to reconsider the petitioner’s claim in light of the seniority list and relevant guidelines. The ruling emphasized that the petitioner’s long-term service and seniority should be acknowledged in the appointment process, mandating AIIMS to adjust the appointment and administrative arrangements accordingly.

This case underscores the intricate balance between departmental regulations, seniority, and administrative control in large institutional frameworks like AIIMS.