The writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.14822 of 2015 has been filed for issuance of a writ of Quo Warranto to the respondents 1 to 6 herein to show cause under what authority the 7th respondent by name Dr.S.Seethalakshmi, is holding the post of Director (in-charge) in the 1st respondent Trust.
2. In W.P.(MD) No.12758 of 2016, the challenge is to the resolution of the 3rd respondent dated 15.09.2015, amending the service rules in favour of Dr.S.Seethalakshmi / 8th respondent in this petition in respect of the post of Director in the 62nd meeting of the Board of Trustees of the 3rd respondent held on 10.02.2016 in Agenda No.5, approving the Amendment to the post of Director of the 3rd respondent Institute published in the Hindu dated 06.04.2016 and the consequential appointment of the 8th respondent in Ref.No.G.I.R.H/Director/2016-2017/ 0098 dated 04.05.2016.
3. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P.(MD) No.12758 of 2016 by referring to the name of 8th respondent in this petition as Dr.S.Seethalakshmi to avoid confusion, as the very same Dr.S.Seethalakshmi is the 7th respondent in W.P.(MD) No.14822 of 2015.
4. The case of the petitioner Association (in short ?the Association?) is as follows:
i) The 3rd respondent is a Trust established in the year 1964 and with the funding support of Non-Government Organization, the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Government of India have a Pilot Health Project by the Founder and also a Veteran Scholar and a Freedom Fighter Dr.T.M.Soundaram during 1959 to 1964; that the object of the Trust is to create a base for promoting Research and Training in the National Family Welfare Programmes and also to have a community programmes for upliftment of rural health; that the Board consists of 16 members and one Mrs.Sheela Rani Sungath has been functioning as Chairman to the Board of Trustees and other ex-officio members are the respondents 1, 2, 4 to 6 etc.; that the Director is the Head of the Institution and the prescribed qualification to the said post is as follows:
1. MBBS Degree
2. Should have not less than fifteen years experience in the fields of Teaching, Training and Health Services, Research and Public Health Administration.
3. Ph.D. in Public Health with 10 years experience in the field of Teaching, Training, Research and Public Health (or) Post Graduate Degree or Diploma in Public Health like MD., Post Graduate (or) DPH, MPH, B.Sc., with 15 years experience in Teaching, Training and Research in the field of Public Health
ii) Though the Dr.S.Seethalakshmi is not having prescribed qualification to hold the post of Director, as she is not having 10 years of experience in the Public Health Administration, all of a sudden, after retirement of one Dr.Munavarkhan from the Directorship, Dr.S.Seethalakshmi was appointed as Director (incharge) by the Board of Trustees with effect from 11.07.2015; that the petitioner has also filed W.P.(MD) No.14822 of 2015 challenging her appointment, in which, this Court granted an interim order to the effect that Dr.S.Seethalakshmi should not indulge in effecting any appointment or promotion until further orders, infuriated by the same, Dr.S.Seethalakshmi started effecting transfer and suspension etc.; that Dr.S.Seethalakshmi is also over-aged, as she is a retired Government Servant; that in order to ratify her illegal appointment, the respondents have been trying to amend the Service Rules in such a way so that Dr.S.Seethalakshmican continue in her post illegally; that in the 62nd meeting of the Board of Trustees to approve the proposed amendment, out of 16 members, only 5 members were present and there was no quorum for passing the valid resolution and approving the amendment to the Service Rules and therefore, the said resolution dated 15.09.2015 is the subject matter in this writ petition.
5. Mrs.Sheela Rani Chunkath / 7th respondent in W.P.(MD) No.12758 of 2016 / Chairman, Board of Trustees has filed a counter, wherein it has been stated as follows:
i) The proposed amendment was sought to be carried out keeping in mind the fact that it was extremely difficult for the Board to appoint an MBBS Degree holder with 15 years of experience to have Ph.D. in Public Health and have 10 years of experience; that the previous incumbents also did not have prescribed qualifications and also have not fulfilled the three qualifications together and therefore, the Service Rules have been amended by way of Circular Resolution dated 15.09.2015 as under: ?MBBS Degree (and) Should have not less than fifteen years experience in the fields of Teaching, Training and Health Services, Research and Public Health Administration. (or) Ph.D. in Public Health with ten years experience in the field of Teaching, Training, Research and Public Health (or) DPH, MPH, B.S.Sc., with 15 years experience in Teaching, Training and Research in the field of Public Health
ii) In the amendment, apart from introduction of words ?AND? ?OR?, another clerical error was also changed, i.e., the qualification ?B.Sc.? in the earlier Service Rules has been changed to ?B.S.Sc.?; that as per Clause 10(h) of the Trust Deed, these amendments were carried out by way of Circular Resolution; that Dr.S.Seethalakshmi is a MBBS Degree Holder with additional qualification of DGO and served in the Tamil Nadu Government as Medical Officer and Chief Civil Surgeon, having completed 25 years of service; that since the Trust is located in a Rural area and salary package was also not high, qualified and experience personnel are not coming forward to take up the posts of Director and Principal and that it is normally common in Government Departments, Public Sector Corporations and Autonomous Bodies to employ retired personnel to continue the service and therefore, the contention that Dr.S.Seethalakshmi is overaged is liable to be rejected.
iii) The amendment to the 2003 Service Rules by way of Circular Resolution is permissible, because it is not possible for the Trustees, comprising of Senior Officers, holding high level positions in the State and Central Governments to attend personally in every Board Meeting; that by way of Circular, out of 16 members, 14 memberss (90%) approved the said amendment in the Service Rules in respect of the post of Director; that after getting due approval, an advertisement was given in the leading English Daily (THE HINDU) calling for applications for the post of Director by giving sufficient time, in response to which, seven applications were received and four applicants were found eligible to be called for the Interview; that out of four applicants, only two attended the interview held at Chennai and after a detailed discussion and personal interview, Dr.S.Seethalakshmi was selected as Director and appointment order was issued on 02.05.2016 and therefore, there is no illegality in the action of the Trust; that finally denying all the averments raised by the petitioner, the respondents would pray for dismissal of these writ petitions.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no proper procedure followed and that the Executive Committee had approved the Rules only on 04.11.2015, whereas in the counter it has been stated that the Board has approved the amendment on 15.09.2015 itself; that the 39th Executive Committee held on 04.11.2015 approved the minutes, in which Dr.S.Seethalakshmi also participated and Item No.3 (Agenda) of the said Executive Committee Meeing was ?reframing of Service Rules for the post of Director ? Amendment Proposed?, which was forwarded to the Board of Trustees and taken up for consideration in the subsequent meeting held on 10.02.2016; that during the pendency of writ petition and despite the interim order, Dr.S.Seethalakshmi was appointed in the 62nd meeting as Director (incharge), contrary to the interim order passed by this Court; that only to accommodate the aid Dr.S.Seethalakshmi, the existing Service Rules were amended with regard to qualification and age relaxation; that out of two applicants attended the interview, though one Chellathurai was in possession of prescribed qualification, he was not selected for the best reasons known to the respondent Trust and therefore, this Court has to necessarily interfere with the matter and to allow these writ petitions to render justice.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Gandhigram Institute of Rural Health and Family Welfare Trust (in short ?the Trust?) would repudiate the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner stating that the Society was started in the year 1959 and it was converted into a Public Charitable Trust in the year 1979 and as on date, there are 60 employees in different categories of employees; that Dr.S.Seethalakshmi was appointed as Principal on 21.10.2014 and she had requisite qualifications; that she lastly worked as Chief Civil Surgeon in the Government and retired from service on 30.06.2014; that the Executive Committee Meeting referred to by the petitioner dated 04.11.2015 and the draft that was placed in the 62nd Meeting have no significance, as the amended rules have already come into force, since 14 persons out of 16 have approved the same and the remaining two persons have not rejected, but only not signed in it.
8. Learned counsel for the Trust drew the attention of this Court to a list of persons, who occupied in the post of Directorship in the Trust to show that the last four persons appointed during the period between September, 2003 and July, 2015, did not possess the exact qualification required for the said post as per the stipulation mentioned in the Old Rules and in order to run the Trust, they were selected and appointed as Directors.
9. Learned counsel representing Dr.S.Seethalakshmi, while reiterating the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Trust, would vehemently contend that there was no hanky-panky in the appointment of Dr.S.Seethalakshmi and the members of the Association, out of animosity towards her, have been creating ruckus in the campus, thereby disturbing the smooth functioning of the Trust and that since Dr.S.Seethalakshmi was found meritorious in the interview, having shown her dedication to discharge her duties in the rural area, she was duly selected and appointed as Director and therefore, there is no merit in the argument advanced by the petitioner Association and the writ petitions are to be dismissed in limine.
10. This Court has given its anxious consideration in extenso to the submissions advanced by either side and perused the documents in toto.
11. Admittedly, the Gandhigram Institute was established with the sole intention to serve for the rural public in remembrance of Mahatma Gandhi?s revolutionary concept of ?Nai Talim? (meaning knowledge and work are not separate) system of education, i.e. to develop academic programmes in Rural Development, Rural Economics and Extension Education, Rural Oriented Sciences, Cooperation, Development Administration, Rural Sociology, English and Foreign Languages, and Tamil and Indian Languages, but it is painful to state that such a noble organization has been pulled out to Court by a group of members of the petitioner Association, infuriated by the appointment of one Dr.S.Seethalakshmi.
12. The utmost core of argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that to facilitate and accommodate Dr.S.Seethalakshmi, the entire machinery of the Trust has been bent. However, there is no reason as to why the Association has all of a sudden awakened from its slumber and has been questioning the appointment of Dr.S.Seethalakshmi alone without challenging the earlier appointments. Of course, it is true that there may be certain irregularities in the earlier appointments and it would not bar them to question the subsequent one. At the same time, in this case, there is no irregularity apparent on the face of record, as Dr.S.Seethalakshmi has duly participated in the selection process and out of four called for, only two, including Dr.S.Seethalakshmi attended the interview and finally, she came out successful in the race. The Association cannot dictate the Trust as to who has to be inducted as Director and cannot question as to why the other one, namely, Chellathurai was not given preference in the selection. Perhaps, the Trust, at the time of interview, would have thought that Dr.S.Seethalakshmi is a better and suitable hand for them.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that though the Executive Committee had approved the amendment in the Rules on 04.11.2015, from the counter affidavit, it could be seen that the Board has approved the amendment as early as on 15.09.2015 itself without following due procedures. To reciprocate the above contention, learned counsel for the respondent Trust has submitted that it is only an empty formality that had taken place and the Executive Committee is nothing, but an Advisory Committee, which, finding no error in the amendment, has simply approved it, on seeing the majority of Trustees duly signed in it.
14. The submission of the respondents that except few Doctors such as Dr.S.Seethalakshmi, other Doctors with higher qualification in the field of medicine are reluctant to work in the rural area, as their main aim of such higher acquirement is to mint money and lead a sophisticated life in the city, cannot be brushed aside. It is to be borne in mind that without Director, the Trust cannot function in a proper perspective and therefore, necessity has arisen for the Trust to amend the service rules, thereby inserting the words ?and? ?or? in it, which has also been approved by the majority of the Trustees and hence, the same is perfectly valid in the eye of law.
15. The next contention put forth by the petitioner is that in the counter, it has been stated that Dr.S.Seethalakshmi, apart from having MBBS Degree, is in possession Diploma in Gynecology and Obstetrics, but as per the records and online data of Government of Tamil Nadu, such additional qualification is not mentioned. It is to be remembered that the last four persons, who served as Directors in the Trust, have not acquired all the three qualifications together and therefore, the said contention is only farfetched and moreover, this Court cannot go into the veracity of the reasons for non inclusion of the additional qualification of the petitioner, viz., DGO, in the records / data, though there is no dispute with regard to possession of the said qualification by Dr.S.Seethalakshmi.
16. According to the respondents, Dr.S.Seethalakshmi was very strict in following the Rules and taking action against workers, who had not followed the same and hence, annoyed by the said act, a handful of workers started agitating against her. Since some litigations are pending against Dr.S.Seethalakshmi, as stated by the parties, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion on the same, as it would hamper the pleadings that may be raised in the pending matters.
17. In fine, in view of what is stated hereinabove, this Court holds that the appointment of Dr.S.Seethalakshmi is perfectly valid in the eye of law and the amendment carried out in the existing rules cannot be said to be bad in law, as it was not amended to accommodate an individual / Dr.S.Seethalakshmi as Director in the Trust, but with the vast vision and intention for upliftment of the rural public.
18. In the result, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To:
1. The Chairman, Gandhigram Institute of Rural Health & Family Welfare Trust, Soundaram Nagar, Gandhigram Post, Dindigul District.
2. The Secretary to Government, Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
4. The Director of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Teynampet, Chennai.
5. The District Collector, Dindigul District.
6. The Senior Regional Director, Regional Office for Health & Family Welfare, A2A, Rajaji Nagar, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090..