V L CHANDRA S M HAMILTON Vs. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES:ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
LAWS(SC)-1990-3-29
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 22,1990

V.L.CHANDRA,S.M.HAMILTON Appellant
VERSUS
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

A K DOGRA RETD VS. INDIAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1991-5-78] [REFERRED 6.]
SHEILA ROY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1993-3-71] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. DIRECTOR AIIMS [LAWS(DLH)-2001-5-111] [REFERRED]
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI VS. NEELAM GAUR [LAWS(DLH)-2002-5-27] [REFERRED]
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE VS. OM PRAKASH [LAWS(DLH)-2002-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
LALJI KUSHWAHA VS. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER [LAWS(ALL)-1997-10-84] [REFERRED TO]
POST DOCTORAL RESERCH ASSOCIATION OF S V UNIVERSITY DR K KRISHNA REDDY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2002-4-40] [REFERRED]
KAILASH PRAKASH YADAV VS. VICE CHANCELLOR B H U [LAWS(ALL)-2002-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH KUMAR VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR M P RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK MARYADIT [LAWS(MPH)-1994-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
M P R S BANK VS. VIJAYSINGH [LAWS(MPH)-1995-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
ANISUR RAHMAN KHAN VS. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY [LAWS(CAL)-1991-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
PROSHANTA GUHA AND MONORATH PANDEY VS. INDIAN INST OF TECH KHARAGPUR [LAWS(CAL)-1995-7-36] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-1992-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE CHAND AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1993-10-74] [REFERRED TO]
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. AMIYA KUMAR BANDOPADHYAY & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-1995-5-45] [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2002-11-173] [REFERRED]
LT. COL. A.K. DOGRA (RETD.) VS. INDIAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-1991-5-98] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KHARAGPUR VS. SANJEEB KUMAR SINGH & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-4-108] [REFERRED TO]
KULBHUSHAN SEHGAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2020-1-77] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Ranganath Misra, J. - (1.)Both these are applications under Art. 32 of the Constitution, the first one by three petitioners and the second by one. The respondent All India Institute of Medical Sciences has been set up under a Central Act of that name of 1956. Section 13 of the Act provides the objects of the Institute which are-
"(a) to develop patterns of teaching in undergraduate and post-graduate medical education in all its branches so as to demonstrate a high standard of medical education to all medical colleges and other allied institutions in India; (b) to bring together in one place educational facilities of the highest order for the training of personnel in all important branches of health activity; and (c) to attain self-sufficiency in post-graduate medical education."

(2.)Section 14 of the Act lays down the functions of the Institute and, inter alia, provides in cls. (a) and (b):
"14. With a view to the promotion of the objects specified under Section 13, the Institute may-

(a) provide for undergraduate and postgraduate teaching in the science of modern medicine and other allied sciences including physical and biological sciences;

(b) provide facilities for research in the various branches of such sciences;"

(3.)Petitioners have alleged that ever since its inception the Institute has taken up various research projects and has made valuable contribution to the updating of medical knowledge and building up coordinated research activity. For the purposes of carrying out such research programme in conjunction with the World Health organisation, the Indian Council of Medical Research and other celebrated organisations - both national and international research projects are undertaken by the Institute by employing researchers. For the carrying out of the assignments of research projects the petitioners were employed more than a decade ago and their assertion to the effect that they have continuously worked for more than 10-15 years has not been disputed. Petitioners have also asserted that they have worked to the satisfaction of the authorities and the guides and there is no denial of that fact too. It is the case of the petitioners that by working for such a long period continuously and in different projects under different guides, they have picked up the requisite expertise which would be useful in carrying out any normal research project. Petitioners allege that there is work in the hands of the Institute but petitioners' employment excepting in the case of Dr. Jasbir Kaur Dhawan (Kochhar), petitioner No. 3 in the first writ petition, as Researchers have now been terminated. They contend that. having worked for a long period in the Institute they have reached an age in life where they are no more entitled to enter into Government service or any other suitable public employment. While the requisite expertise and are useful for the purpose of assisting research programme with the deprivation of their employment and faced with the ban of over age for any public employment they are deprived of the source of sustenance and the nation is deprived of their useful service.
;


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