Venugopal's termination "naked discrimination", says SC

Venugopal's termination "naked discrimination", says SC The Supreme Court, which has ordered the reinstatement of AIIMS director P Venugopal, has termed as "naked discrimination" and "one man legislation," the Centre's controversial Act which prematurely retired the eminent cardiologist. In its 58-page judgement released on Friday, the bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and H S Bedi said Venugopal would be entitled to his pay and other emoluments "as he was getting before premature termination of his office from the date of his order of termination". 66-year-old Venugopal, whose five-year term is due to end on 2nd July, was eased out of office last November following an amendment to the AIIMS Act fixing 65 years as the age of superannuation. Venugopal and Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss were engaged in a bitter turf war over the control of the prestigious institute. The apex court struck down the controversial amendment to Section 11 of the AIIMS Act, 2007 by which Venugopal was prematurely retired. It termed the proviso as "unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice". "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 bench observed. The apex court made the observation while upholding the contention of Venugopal that the impugned Act was brought by the government only with the sole purpose of terminating his service prematurely. Venugopal, who resumed duties on Thursday, would continue in service till 2nd July, 2008, the apex court said. "The writ petitioner shall serve the nation for some more periods, i.e. upto 2nd of July, 2008. We direct the AIIMS authorities to restore the writ petitioner in his office as Director AIIMS till his period comes to an end on 2nd of July, 2008," the bench observed. The apex court 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 the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the fundamental rights conferred on the citizens. "Thus 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," the bench observed. The bench asserted that the service conditions of AIIMS made the director's appointment a "tenure post" which cannot be terminated prematurely. "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 bench said. It said that once a person is appointed to a tenure post, his appointment to the said post begins when he joins and it comes to an end on the completion of 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.

"Loved reading this piece by SANJAY DIXIT?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group