http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: DR. J.N. BANAVALIKAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/09/1995

BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  326            1995 SCC  Supl.  (4)  89  JT 1995 (7)   105        1995 SCALE  (5)509

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T G.N. RAY. J.      Leave granted.      Heard learned counsel for the parties.      This appeal  is directed  against order dated March 21, 1995 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Writ  Petition   No.  3995   of  1994.  The  appellant.  Dr. Banavalikar is  a doctor with specialisation in tuberculosis and chest diseases. The appellant joined the medical service under the  Municipal Corporation  of Delhi on 28.4.1980. The appellant was posted as Superintendent-cum-Senior Consultant in  Tuberculosis   in  Rajan   Babu  T.B.   Hospital.  Delhi (hereinafter referred  to as  RBTB Hospital)  on 31st March, 1989  on  retirement  of  Dr.  R.P.  Bagchi  from  Municipal Service. Dr.  Banavalikar at  that time was holding the post of specialist  Grade I  (TB and  Chest)  in  the  said  RBTB Hospital. In  the letter  posting the  appellant as  Medical Superintendent, it  was specifically mentioned that he would get his  own pay  scale while  holding the charge of Medical Superintendent.   The   appellant   continued   as   Medical Superintendent of  the said RBTB Hospital for about five and half years.  The appellant  was relieved  from the charge of Medical Superintendent  of RBTB  Hospital. The appellant was intimated that  he would  continue to  work as  Senior Chest Specialist in  the said  hospital as  before. The respondent No.2  Dr.  Sudhakar  Patnaik  who  was  working  as  Medical Superintendent in  I.D. Hospital  was given  the  charge  of Medical Suprintendent  in RBTB  Hospital.  It  may  also  be indicated here  the appellant  was given ad hoc promotion to the post of Supertime Grade I (clinical) in the pay scale of Rs. 5900-6700  with effect  from 1.6.1994  initially  for  a period of  one year  or till  such time  the post  would  be filled up  on regular basis or till further orders whichever would be  earlier. Such  ad hoc  promotion was  given to the appellant while  he was  holding the  dual charge of Medical

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

Superintendent and  Specialist Grade I (TB and Chest) in the said RBTB Hospital.      The appellant  challenged the order of his removal from the post  of Medical  Superintendent  of  RBTB  Hospital  by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India  before the  Delhi High Court inter alia contending that the post of Medical Superintendent of RBTB Hospital had always been  held by  the Senior  specialist in Tuberculosis and chest  diseases and  the appellant being the senior most specialist in  Tuberculosis and  chest diseases  of the said hospital, was  given the  charge of  Medical  Superintendent with effect from March 31, 1989 on retirement of Dr. Bagchi. He had  held the post of Medical Superintendent of RBTB till the impugned  order of  his removal from the post of Medical Superintendent and  appointment of  Dr. Patnaik  to the said post was  made. The appellant contended that in a specialist Hospital like  RBTB Hospital,  no one should be appointed as Medical Superintendent  of the  said Hospital  who  did  not possess  the   specialisation  in   Tuberculosis  and  Chest diseases. The  appellant contended that he being senior most chest specialist  in the said hospital had been appointed to the post  of Medical  Superintendent of  RBTB  Hospital  and there was no valid reason for his removal from the said post and  appointing   Dr.  Patnaik  who  had  specialisation  in Pathology and  who at the relevant time was holding the post of  Medical   Superintendent  in   the  I.D.  Hospital.  The appellant  also   contended  that  the  impugned  order  had resulted  in  his  demotion  without  any  basis.  The  writ petition, however, on contest, was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court inter alia on the finding that Dr. Patnaik  was senior  to the  appellant in  the cadre  of specialist Grade  I and  senior most doctor used to be given the charge of Medical Superintendent and the post of Medical Superintendent had  no separate  scale of  pay. It  was also held by the High Court that the appellant had no legal right to continue as Medical Superintendent and if a person senior to  him   was  appointed   as  Medical  Superintendent,  the appellant had no occasion to feel aggrieved.      At the  hearing of  this appeal.  Dr. Dhaon the learned Senior counsel  appearing for  the appellant  has  contended that the  post of  Medical Superintendent in a hospital is a distinct post.  The Medical  Superintendent  is  in  overall charge  of  the  hospital  and  all  the  doctors  including specialists  in   different  specialities   are  under   his administrative  control  in  the  matter  of  administrative decisions. Even if the post of Medical Superintendent in the hospital  under   the  administration   of  Delhi  Municipal Corporation has  no separate  scale out the incumbent of the said post  is just  entitled to  his own  scale of  pay as a specialist  with  only  a  nominal  special  allowance,  the Medical Superintendent  enjoys an  unique  position  in  the administrative  set   up  of  the  hospital  and  every  one understands that  the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital holds a  position superior  to all other doctors. The status and dignity  attached to  the post of Medical Superintendent and overall administrative control of the hospital exercised by the  Medical Superintendent  always give  him a  position which is  superior and  is held  by common  man superior  to other doctors.  Such superiority  of the  post emanates from the status,  dignity and  overall administrative control and the same is not referable to the scale of pay enjoyed by the Medical Superintendent.  In this  connection, Dr.  Dhaon has referred to  the decision  of this  Court  in  E.P.  Rovappa versus State  of Tamil  Nadu (1974  (4) SCC  3). In the said decision, this  court has  indicated  that  the  purpose  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

declaration of  equivalence of a non cadre post with a cadre post for the Indian Administrative Service is to ensure that public services  are, in  the discharge of their duties, not exposed to the demoralising and depraving effect of personal or political  nepotism or  victimisation or  the vagaries of the political machine. The government must apply its mind to the nature  and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached  to   the  non   cadre  post   and  determine   the equivalence. It  has also  been held  that equal pay will by itself not  be  decisive  of  the  equation  of  status  and responsibility of the post.      Dr. Dhaon  has referred  to another  decision  of  this Court in  Vice Chancellor.  L.N. Mithila  University  versus Dayanand Jha  (1986 (3)  SCC 7). While considering the power of the  Vice Chancellor  to transfer any teacher occupying a post  in   any  department  or  college  maintained  by  the University to  any equivalent  post in another department or college maintained  by it, it has been indicated in the said judgment that  in order  to  be  equivalent,  the  posts  in question must  broadly bear  the  same  characteristics  and class. The  true criterion for equivalence is the status and the nature  of responsibility  of the duties attached to the posts. The  mere circumstance that the two posts are carried on the  same scale  of pay  is not  enough.  Dr.  Dhaon  has submitted that RBTB Hospital is not a general hospital but a socialised hospital  for the  treatment of  tuberculosis and chest diseases.  For a  long time  in the  past, the Medical Superintendent of  the RBTB Hospital was invariably a doctor having specialisation in chest and tuberculosis diseases. As a matter  of fact,  the appellant. Dr. Banavalikar succeeded Dr. Bagchi  as Medical  Superintendent on  his attaining the age of superannuation. The said Dr. Bagchi was also a senior specialist in  tuberculosis and  chest diseases. The Medical Superintendent controls  the administrative  set up  of  the entire  hospital.   In  a  specialised  hospital  like  RBTB hospital,  a   person  with  specialised  knowledge  in  the treatment of  the patients  suffering from  tuberculosis and chest diseases who would be admitted in the said specialised hospital,  is   best  suited   for  the   post  of   Medical Superintendent, so  that  he  would  better  appreciate  the requirement of various departments of the hospital and would be  able   to  coordinate   with  various  departments  more effectively and  by overall  supervision and  control of the administration,  may  tone  up  the  administration  to  its desired  level.  It  is  because  of  the  felt  need  of  a specialist in  tuberculosis and  chest diseases  to man  the sensitive post  of Medical  Superintendent that  all along a specialist in  tuberculosis and chest diseases had been made Medical Superintendent of the Hospital.      Dr. Dhaon  has submitted  that  the  appellant  is  not inefficient or  incompetent to  hold  the  post  of  Medical Superintendent. As  a matter  of fact,  he had held the said post for  about five  years and  a half.  He has also earned promotion to  supertime Selection  Grade I  during the later part of his tenure as Medical Superintendent. Dr. Patnaik is a pathologist  and he  had been  holding the post of Medical Superintendent in I.D. Hospital. He has submitted that it is apparent that  the concerned  authorities  desired  to  show favour to a person who is admittedly junior to the appellant by making him Medical Superintendent of I.D. Hospital and to accommodate such  junior  person.  Dr.  Patnaik  had  to  be shifted from  the post  of Medical  Superintendent  of  that Hospital to RBTB Hospital and by that process to relieve the appellant from the duties of Medical Superintendent.      Dr.  Dhaon  has  submitted  that  the  High  Court  has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

highlighted the fact that the post of Medical Superintendent has no separate scale and the appellant has not suffered any change  in   his  scale.   Dr.  Dhaon   has  submitted  that equivalence of  scale in  two posts is not at all a decisive factor  to   determine  the   equivalence  in   status   and responsibility of the posts in question as indicated by this court  in   the  decisions   of  Rovappa  (Supra)  and  Vice Chancellor of L.N. Mithila University (Supra). Dr. Dhaon has submitted that  it does  not require any imagination to hold that the  post of the Medical Superintendent in the hospital is most prestigious and unique in status and responsibility. That apart,  some special  privileges like special allowance and entitlement to residential quarter are also available to the incumbent  of the  post of  Medical Superintendent.  The appellant has  undoubtedly lost  not only the special status of Medical  Superintendent but  also the  other perks, which are special to the said post.      Dr. Dhaon  has submitted that in the facts of the case, there was no compelling administrative exigency to shift out the appellant  from the said post and to bring Dr. Patnaik a pathologist  already   holding  the   position  of   Medical Superintendent in  another hospital. Dr. Dhaon has submitted that administrative  decision will  not only  conform to the authority and power to take decision but should also conform to fairness in action. Dr. Dhaon has submitted that the High Court has  unfortunately failed  to appreciate  the lack  of fairness  and  reasonableness  in  the  impugned  action  of removal of  the appellant  and being  obsessed with the view that the  appellant had no inherent right to continue in the said post  of Medical Superintendent, has dismissed the writ petition.      Dr. Dhaon  has submitted  that the  appellant is also a very senior  specialist in  the Health  Department of  Delhi Municipal Corporation.  He has  also a legitimate aspiration to get  proper recognition from the concerned authorities in view of  his long  and meritorious  service as a specialist. The impugned  order can  not but  hurt  his  sentiments  and feelings. It  is quite evident that the status so long being enjoyed by  him as  Medical Superintendent has been lowered. Even if  the authorities  are competent to pass the impugned order the  court should  be satisfied  that it was necessary because of  a genuine  administrative exigency  to pass  the impugned order.  Dr. Dhaon has submitted that the respondent has failed  to place  materials to  show the  existence of a genuine administrative  exigency to pass the impugned order. He, therefore submits that this appeal should be allowed and the impugned  order should  be set  aside. According  to him such order  will not  create any  prejudice to  Dr.  Patnaik because by  virtue of  his seniority, he would hold the post of Medical Superintendent in another hospital.      Mrs. Shyamala  Pappu. learned  senior counsel appearing for the  Municipal Corporation  of Delhi  has  disputed  the contentions  of  Dr.  Dhaon.  She  has  submitted  that  the appellant had  not been demoted or reduced in rank. The post of Medical  Superintendent is  not a  promotional post.  The appellant was  therefore never  promoted to the said post of Medical   Superintendent.    The   function    of    Medical Superintendent is  purely administrative  in nature  and the senior  most   doctor  automatically   becomes  the  Medical Superintendent of  the concerned  hospital and  performs the administrative duties  attached to  that post in addition to regular duties  of the  speciality to  which such  doctor is attached. The  senior most  doctor. Who is asked to performs the duties  of medical  superintendent, continues to get his own pay  scale as  specialist. Such  doctor however  gets an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

administrative  allowance   of  Rs.   200/-  per  month  for discharging the  additional administrative duties of Medical Superintendent. Mrs.  Pappu has submitted that there is only one  integrated   seniority  list  of  specialists  Grade  I regardless of  the fact  whether the  said specialist  is  a Medical Superintendent  at any point of time. Mrs. Pappu has submitted that  the appellant  being senior  most doctor  in RBTB Hospital.  When Dr.  Bagchi had  retired, was posted as Medical Superintendent of RBTB Hospital in his own pay scale which he was drawing as specialist Grade I. The appellant by virtue of  his seniority  was then not entitled to supertime Scale of  specialist Grade  I and  some time  in 1994 he was given such supertime scale on ad hoc basis.      Mrs.  Pappu  has  submitted  that  the  aforesaid  fact clearly indicates  that the  post of  Medical Superintendent has never  been treated as a superior post in the integrated cadre of  specialists Grade  I. The  appellant being  senior most doctor  in the  hospital  was  holding  the  charge  of Medical Superintendent  besides performing his normal duties as  specialist  Grade  I.  Even  though  he  was  given  the assignment of  Medical Superintendent,  his position  in the integrated seniority  list was  maintained and  he  was  not given the  supertime scale  in view of his alleged promotion to a  superior post.  It was  only in 1994 when according to his seniority  position. He  became  entitled  to  supertime scale, it was given to him on ad hoc basis.      Mrs. Pappu  has submitted that a specialist is expected to treat  the patients  in a  better manner by virtue of his expertise and  specialised knowledge.  The  appellant  being senior  most   specialist  Grade  I  in  the  speciality  of tuberculosis and  chest diseases,  is still holding the post of Head  of the  department which  he had  been holding even when Dr. Patnaik has been made Medical Superintendent of the Hospital.  Similarly  Dr.  Patnaik  being  a  specialist  in Pathology has  been discharging  his  duties  as  Patholgist despite  the   assignment   of   the   duties   of   Medical Superintendent of the hospital.      Mrs. Pappu has submitted that although an allegation of malafide action  by way  showing favour  to junior doctor by making him  Medical  Superintendent  in  I.D.  Hospital  and consequential   shifting   of   Dr.   Patnaik   as   Medical Superintendent of  RBTB Hospital  has been made, neither the person  responsible  for  the  alleged  malafide  action  in showing favour to a junior doctor nor the said junior doctor was impleaded  in the writ petition before the High Court or in  the   special  leave  petition  before  this  court.  No particular of  such malafide  action has also been indicated by the appellant. Hence, the contention about malice in fact to show  favour to  another doctor cannot be permitted to be raised.      Mrs. Pappu has also submitted that in the instant case, there was  also no  malice in  law. There  had not  been any arbitrary and unreasonable action in bringing Dr. Patnaik as Medical Superintendent  of RBTB Hospital. The administration of Delhi  Municipal Corporation  is required  to look to the interest of  all the hospitals and clinics under its control and interests  of all  the doctors  under its are also to be looked into. Since the post of Medical Superintendent is not a promotional  post and  to a  senior most  specialist in  a hospital the  assignment of  additional  duties  of  Medical services as  a routine  measure or nominal monthly allowance over and  above his  regular pay  is be to given, on overall consideration of  administration of  different hospitals Dr. Patnaik was  posted  in  the  RBTB  Hospital  and  he  being admittedly senior  to the  appellant was given the charge of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

Medical Superintendent.  Mrs. Pappu  has submitted  that the appellant is not permitted to dictate the policy decision of posting of  doctors in different hospitals and clinics under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Mrs. Pappu has submitted that on previous occasions the specialists in chest diseases happened to  be the  senior most specialist in RBTB Hospital and as  such they had been made Medical Superintendent. As a matter of fact the appellant being senior most specialist in the hospital  at the  relevant  time  when  Dr.  Bagchi  had retired, was given the charge of Medical Superintendent even though in  the integrated seniority list of specialist Grade I, he  was junior to many. Mrs. Pappu has submitted that the perception of  Dr. Banavalikar  that only  a  specialist  in chest diseases  would be made Medical Superintendent in RBTB Hospital is  not shared  by the  concerned  authorities  and there  is  also  no  basis  for  such  contention.  She  has submitted that the appellant being Head of his department is quite free  to  guide  and  control  the  treatment  of  the patients and in the matter of treatment, the decision of the specialist and  Head of the department prevails and there is no question of interference by the Medical Superintendent.      Mrs. Pappu  has submitted  that as  the post of Medical Superintendent is  not a promotional post, the assignment of duties of  Medical Superintendent  to the  appellant when he was senior  most specialist Grade I in the said hospital was made as  a routine  measure. Such assignment however has not conferred any vested right on the appellant to continue as a Medical  Superintendent.  The  High  Court  has,  therefore, rightly rejected  the writ  petition  by  holding  that  the appellant  had  no  vested  right  to  continue  as  Medical Superintendent. Mrs.  Pappu has submitted that appellant can not challenge  the policy of posting of different doctors in various hospitals  and clinics  under  the  control  of  the Municipal Corporation. In any event, in the instant case any allegation of  malice in  fact  cannot  be  raised  for  the reasons already  indicated. There  is no  material excepting vague and  bald assertions  as to  unreasonable  and  unjust decision in  bringing Dr.  Patnaik as Medical Superintendent in RBTB  Hospital. Such  contention being absolutely without any basis  and having  been made by the appellant only in an attempt  to  continue  as  Medical  Superintendent  of  RBTB Hospital, the  High Court  has not  accepted such contention and in  the facts  of the  case,  the  same  should  not  be countenanced by  this Court.  She has  therefore,  submitted that any  interference with  the impugned  order of the High Court is  not warranted.  The appeal  therefore,  should  be dismissed.      After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of  the case,  the materials on record and the respective  submission   of  the  learned  counsel  for  the parties, it  appears to  us that  there is no specific cadre post as  Medical Superintendent  of the  hospital under  the administration of  Delhi Municipal  Corporation. It  is  the positive case of the respondent-corporation that senior most specialist Grade  I in  a hospital  is given  the additional charge of  Medical  Superintendent  of  the  Hospital.  Such doctor in  specialist Grade I performs his regular duties as specialist   Grade    I   and   also   performs   additional administrative duties  as Medical Superintendent. Since post of Medical  Superintendent is  neither a separate cadre post nor the  same is  a promotional  post, the  concerned doctor remains in  his  own  scale  of  pay  as  Grade  I  but  for discharging additional  duties as Medical Superintendent, he gets a special monthly allowance of Rs.200/-. The integrated seniority list  in the  cadre of  specialist Grade I remains

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

unaffected by  the assignment  of the  responsibilities  and duties of  Medical Superintendent on the Specialist Grade I. A senior  most Specialist  Grade I  in a  hospital even when made Medical Superintendent of that hospital carries his own scale of  pay and his seniority position as Specialist Grade I.  Precisely   for  the   said   reasons,   the   appellant Banavalikar, by  virtue of  his being  seniormost specialist Grade I  or RBTB  Hospital when Dr. Bagchi, the then Medical Superintendent of  the said  hospital had  retired, was made Medical Superintendent of the said hospital in 1989 although in the  integrated seniority  list of  specialist Grade I he happened to  be junior to many including the respondent No.2 Dr.  Patnaik.  In  the  letter  appointing  him  as  Medical Superintendent  of   RBTB  Hospital,   it  was  specifically mentioned that  he would  continue in  his own  scale of the specialists. It  is a  fact that  until appointment  of  Dr. Patnaik as  Medical Superintendent of RBTB Hospital in 1994, the appellant  and the  other predecessors  in office of the Medical Superintendent  of RBTB Hospital were specialists in tuberculosis and  chest diseases.  But the fact remains that all the  said specialists in tuberculosis and chest diseases holding the  post of Medical Superintendent of RBTB Hospital happened to  be the seniormost doctors in the said Hospital. The appellant  has contended  that in RBTB Hospital which is not a  general Hospital  but a  special hospital  meant  for treating patients  suffering  from  tuberculosis  and  chest diseases,  the   concerned   authorities   consciously   and intentionally appointed  a specialists  in tuberculosis  and chest  diseases   as  Medical  Superintendent  of  the  said hospital because such specialist is best suited for the post of  Medical   Superintendent  in  the  said  hospital.  Such contention of  the appellant  has been seriously disputed by the respondents  and according  to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi,  the function  of the  Medical  Superintendent  is purely administrative in nature and as such it is immaterial if the  Medical Superintendent  of RBTB  Hospital  does  not possess  any   specialisation  in   tuberculosis  and  chest diseases. The  contention of  the respondent-corporation  is that factum  that the  appellant  and  his  predecessors  in office of  Medical  Superintendent  of  RBTB  Hospital  were specialists in  tuberculosis and  chest diseases, was just a coincidence.  The   appellant  has  failed  to  produce  any material to  show that there had been any policy decision to select only  a specialist in tuberculosis and chest diseases as Medical  Superintendent of  RBTB Hospital. The perception of the  appellant and  that of  respondent-Corporation as to impelling necessity  to select  a specialist in tuberculosis and  chest   diseases  as  Medical  Superintendent  of  RBTB Hospital are  entirely different  and in  the absence of any rule or  policy decision  of the  concerned authorities, the appellant can  not insist  on appointment of a specialist in chest diseases as Medical Superintendent of RBTB Hospital by way of  implementation of  a policy.  In the  absence of any rule or administrative policy decision, selection of Medical Superintendent  of   the  hospitals  under  the  Corporation remains a  prerogative  of  the  Corporation.  We  may  also indicate that  efficiency of  a doctor  in  discharging  the function of  the Medical  Superintendent will depend more on his  administrative   capability  than   on  his  skill  and specialisation in a particular stream of medical science.      The appellant  therefore, cannot  be heard  to  contend that only a specialist in tuberculosis and heart diseases is to be  made Medical  Superintendent of RBTB Hospital and any departure from  such appointment  is per  se unjust improper and arbitrary thereby warranting interference by this Court.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

The High Court in our view, is justified in holding that the appellant  had  no  vested  right  to  continue  as  Medical Superintendent of  the said  Hospital simply  because he was given the  assignment of  Medical Superintendent and allowed to hold the said office of Medical Superintendent for a long time. We may however, indicate here that the post of Medical Superintendent in  a hospital  is unique  in status, dignity and responsibility  more so  when  the  incumbert  not  only discharges his  functions as  a specialist but also performs administrative control of the entire hospital. But as in our view, the  appellant cannot  claim as  a matter  of right to hold the  office of  Medical Superintendent  which is  not a promotional post  or a  post in  a special  cadre and  as  a specialist  admittedly   senior  to  the  appellant  in  the integrated cadre  of specialist  Grade I  has been given the assignment  of   Medical  Superintendent  of  RBTB  Hospital without affecting his position as the Head of the Department in  his  speciality,  the  appellant  cannot  challenge  the appointment of Dr. Patnaik as Medical Superintendent in RBTB Hospital and  consequential  removal  of  the  appellant  as Medical Superintendent  by contending  that such appointment is per se illegal, improper, unjust and arbitrary.      Dr. Dhaon  has  however  contended  that  even  if  the administration was  competent  to  appoint  Dr.  Patnaik  as Medical Superintendent  by removing  the appellant  from the said post,  the action of the respondent-Corporation must be consistent with reasonableness and fair play and informed by exigency of  administration. Merely  because the Corporation has  authority   to  appoint  Dr.  Patnaik  and  remove  the appellant, it  will not  be permitted  to do  so on its ipse dixit  unconnected   with  any  public  purpose  or  genuine administrative exigency warranting such cause of action.      No exception  can be  taken to  such contention  or Dr. Dhaon as an abstract proposition of constitutional safeguard against arbitrary  action on  the  part  of  Government  and public  bodies.   There  is   no  manner   of   doubt   that administrative decision of government and public bodies will not only  be consistent with the competence to take decision cut such decision should also conform to fairness in action. Such fairness must be demonstrable with full transparency if a challenge  of such  action on the vice of arbitrariness or on the ground of mala fide is made. If the administration of a public  body or a government takes a decision which can be demonstrated as  lacking in  reasonableness and  fairplay or tainted with mala fide or arbitrariness, such administrative action even  if made  by a  competent authority, offends the pervasive protection under Article 14 of the Constitution of India  against   mala  fide   and   arbitrariness   in   the governmental action  and action of the public bodies, in our view, the  appellant would  be entitled  to ask for quashing the impugned  action of his removal from the post of Medical Superintendent if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the  court that  such action  had been  taken without any reasonable basis  and not  being informed  by administrative exigency out  merely on  the caprice  and ipse  dixit of the concerned authority or being actuated by malafide intention. In that  event,  the  consideration  of  the  right  of  the appellant to  continue in the post of Medical Superintendent will not  be germane  because having been lawfully appointed by the  competent authority, the appellant cannot be removed by any  illegal and  improper action offending Article 14 of the Constitution. To be more precise, any action contrary to protection anshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution is perse void and not to be countenanced as existing.      In the  facts and  circumstances of  this appeal, it is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

not possible  to hold  that the  impugned action in removing the appellant and appointing Dr. Patnaik is unfair or unjust or irrational  or arbitrary  or tainted  with  any  malafide intention. The  contention of the appellant that in order to accommodate a  junior doctor  as Medical  Superintendent  in I.D. Hospital,  Dr. Patnaik had been moved out from the said hospital to  replace the appellant as Medical Superintendent of RBTB hospital, is not only vague but lacks in particulars forming the  foundation of  such contention. Further, in the absence of  impleadment of  the junior doctor who is alleged to have  been favoured  by the  course of  action leading to removal of  the appellant  and the  person who had allegedly passed malafide order in order to favour such junior doctor, any contention  of malafide  action in  fact i.e.  malice in fact should  not countenanced  by  the  Court.  This  appeal therefore, fails  and is  dismissed without  any order as to costs.      Before we  part, we  may, however,  indicate  that  the appellant having  rendered long  and  useful  service  as  a specialist Grade  I and having been given supertime scale in the cadre  of specialist  Grade  I  in  recognition  of  his meritorious service,  cannot be blamed for having legitimate aspiration to  hold the  position  of  status  and  dignity, unique  in   the  set   up  of   a  hospital,   as   Medical Superintendent. It is reasonably expected that the concerned authority will be alive to such legitimate aspiration of the appellant and  will consider  his  case  of  appointment  as Medical  Superintendent   whenever  an   occasion  for  such consideration would arise, dispassionately and without being influenced by the result of this appeal.