Sacking Venugopal was illegal, ‘naked’ bias, ruled SC

Venugopal, whose term is due to end on July 2, was eased out of office last November following an amendment to the AIIMS Act fixing the director’s age limit at 65 years.

Quashing the proviso to Section 11A of the AIIMS Act as “unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice”, the Bench said: “The impugned proviso does not lay down any policy or principle at all, but deals only with the case of the writ petitioner and seeks to affect him in isolation.”

It observed: “There was never any permissibility for any artificial and impermissible classification between the writ petitioner (Venugopal) on the one hand and any future director of AIIMS on the other when it relates to the premature termination of the term of office of the director.”

The apex court agreed with the view of senior counsel Arun Jaitley, appearing for Venugopal, that the impugned legislation was effected to single out Venugopal for premature termination.

“In the present case, the impugned proviso to Section 11(1A) itself states that it is carrying out premature termination of the tenure of the writ petitioner. It is also admitted that such a premature termination is without following the safeguards of justifiable reasons and notice,” held the Bench.

Holding that the impugned legislation is violative of Article 14, the Bench observed: “It creates an unreasonable classification between the writ petitioner and the future directors, and deprives the writ petitioner of the principles of natural justice without there being any intelligible differentia.”

The Bench also upheld Venugopal’s contention that a person entering government service does not forego his fundamental rights. Quoting Article 13 (2) of the Constitution, the apex court said: “In India, a law cannot be accepted merely because it purports to be a law falling within the legislative field of the maker thereof. Each such provision of law is required to stand the test of Article 13 (2) of the Constitution and survive.”

Asserting that the office of AIIMS director is a tenure post, it said: “Service conditions make the post of director a tenure post, and as such the question of superannuating or prematurely retiring the incumbent of the said post does not arise at all. Even an outsider can be selected and appointed to the post of director.”

The court said that once a person is appointed to a tenure post, his appointment comes to an end only on completion of the tenure. “Unless curtailed on justifiable grounds, such a person does not superannuate, he only goes out of the office on completion of his tenure,” the Bench observed.

It added: “Parliament does not seem to have been apprised about the pendency of the proceedings before the Delhi High Court and this court, and declaration made and directions issued by the Delhi High Court at different stages.”

Observing that Venugopal would “continue to serve the nation for some more period,” it directed the AIIMS authorities to restore him his office as director till his tenure comes to an end on July 2 this year.