In CA No. 3180 of 2016- SC- Supreme Court directs K.J. Somaiya Medical College to pay compensation amount to 3 lecturers in lieu of reinstatement in Mumbai University
Justices Abhay S. Oka & Rajesh Bindal [19-05-2023]

Read Order: K.J. Somaiya Medical College and Research Centre v. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences

Simran Singh

New Delhi, May 22, 2023- In a Civil Appeal filed by a medical college, the Supreme Court stated that it could not find fault with the impugned judgment, as far as the reinstatement of the said three  lecturers was concerned, and accordingly moulded the relief by directing the appellants to pay the following compensation amounts in lieu of reinstatement to the said three lecturers.

In the matter at hand, the appellants running the medical college challenged the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court which had rejected the review petition of the judgment dated 17-04-2007. Respondent 5 were 3 lecturers who were appointed by the appellant from the year 1991-93.

The lecturers contend that at the time of their appointment, the medical college was affiliated to the University of Mumbai and were regularly appointed as full-timers since they fulfilled the qualifications laid down by the University of Mumbai in terms with the Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 (‘the 1998 regulations’). Further, clause 2 of the Schedule 1 of the 1998 regulations provided that lecturers in their department and non medical teachers may be appointed to the extent of 30 percent of the total number of posts in the department and the qualification of Master of Science was sufficient for the appointment. Nonetheless, the employments of the said three lecturers were terminated with effect from 21-06-2004 on the ground that their employment was void ab initio as they were not qualified.

Legal Trajectory

The Grievance Redressal Committee on 09-05-2006 had recommended the reinstatement of the said 3 lecturers and the University of Mumbai was directed to approve the appointment of those 3 lecturers with retrospective effect from the year 1998. The appellant medical college, being aggrieved by the decision of the grievance redressal committee, filed 3 writs before the Bombay High Court wherein it was observed that the relevant date was the date on which the said 3 lecturers were appointed.

The High Court noted that even the appellants had agreed that the said 3 lecturers were duly qualified in terms of the Regulations existing at the time of their appointment and that the Medical Council of India (‘respondent 3’) had never raised any objection to their appointments till the date the Medical College got affiliated to the University, thus the 1998 regulations would have no application and accordingly directed the appellants to immediately comply with the recommendations of the Grievance Redressal Committee. However, the appellants had sought for interim relief before the High Court and did not implement the impugned order.

Court Observation and Analysis

The Bench stated that while directing the appellants to implement the recommendations of the Grievance Redressal Committee, liberty was granted to the appellants to make a fresh representation to the Medical Council of India for pointing out that the said three lecturers were teaching from the years 1991-92 and 1992-93 and therefore, the said Regulations of 1998 would not apply to them. Therefore, the Bench stated that it did not find any error in the impugned judgment.

While navigating through the question whether, at this stage, relief of reinstatement with consequential benefits could be granted or not, the Bench perused the affidavits filed by the 3 lecturers. It also noted that Medical Council of India had all throughout stated that those 3 lectures were not qualified to teach in the Medical College. Keeping such factors in mind, it was tested that the grant of reinstatement would not be appropriate, even more so when those lectures had not worked as a teacher after 21-06-2004.

The Bench stated that the impugned judgement was  based on a concession by the appellants that on the date of the appointment, the said 3 lecturers were qualified but the appellants did not comply with the impugned judgment. Thus, the Court was of the view that  reasonable compensation would have to be granted to the lecturers in lieu of their reinstatement in exercise of its jursidtfition under Article 142 of the Constitution.

The Court stated that it could not find fault with the impugned judgment,  as far as the reinstatement of the said 3  lecturers was concerned and accordingly moulded the relief by directing the appellants to pay the following compensation amounts in lieu of reinstatement to the said 3 lecturers.

The Bench directed that the three lecturers be paid compensation of Rs 11 lakh, Rs 7.20 lakh and Rs 7.10 lakh respectively, calculated on the basis of the different facts of their individual employment.

In addition, they were entitled to the costs of the petitions quantified to Rs.50,000/- each which would be paid to them within 2 months from the date of the order. On the failure of which, the same would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this judgment till the payment of the amounts.