Holding

AIIMS must establish a scheme to maintain a team of researchers and the three petitioners whose services were terminated must be provided employment as researchers or in suitable alternative positions.

Summary

The petitioners, long‑serving researchers at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), challenged the termination of their services after the completion of research projects, alleging that they were entitled to continued employment given their 10‑15 years of service and advanced age which limited other job prospects. AIIMS contended that employment was strictly project‑wise and that continuity of service did not create any vested right to ongoing employment. The Supreme Court examined Sections 13 and 14 of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956, and the constitutional provision of Article 32, interpreting the statutory purpose of AIIMS as a continuous research institution. The Court held that AIIMS should devise a scheme, in coordination with the Ministry of Health and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), to build a permanent team of researchers. Accordingly, the Court directed that the three petitioners whose services were terminated be provided employment either as researchers or in suitable alternative positions, with ICMR to arrange such employment within two months and the Ministry of Health to ensure necessary funding. The petitions were disposed of with these directions and no order for costs.

Issues considered

Whether researchers employed on a project‑wise basis at AIIMS have a legal right to continued employment after project completion.
Whether the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 obliges the Institute to provide permanent employment to its researchers.
Whether the termination of employment violates the petitioners' constitutional right to livelihood under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956s. 13, s. 14, s. 14-A
Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

research employmentproject‑wise employmentAIIMSconstitutional writright to livelihoodstatutory dutyICMRMinistry of Healthemployment terminationage discrimination

Judgment

A DR. V.L. CHANDRA AND ORS. ETC.
v.
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND ORS.

MARCH 22, 1990

B [RANGANATH MISRA, M.N. PUNCHHI AND
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

All India Institute cf Medical Sciences Act, 1956: Sections 13 and
14-A. I. I. M. S. -Research Projects-Researchers--- Termination of
services on completion of Project-Scheme to be evolved to build up
C team of Researchers to meet general requirements of research-Con-
tinuous Research Projects to be sponsored-Employment to be pro-
vided to the Researchers-Directions issued.

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32-Researchers employed
by A.l.J.M.S.-Completion of project-Services terminated-Resear-
D chers to be provided employment-Direction issued.

The Petitioners were employed by the respondent-Institute for
carrying out assignments of research projects undertaken by the Insti·
tute. The employment of three of the four petitioners was terminated.
The petitioners fI!ed Writ Petitions in this Court alleging that they were
E continuously employed for more than 10-15 years and had reached an
age in life where they were no more entitled to enter into Government
service or any other suitable employment and, with the deprivation of
their employment they were deprived of the source of sustenance and
the nation of their useful service, as they had picked up requisite
expertise which would be useful in carrying out any normal research
F project.

In the common affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the
respondent-Institute stated that the employment was project-wise, and
once the project was complete, the job came to an end, and the services
of the petitioners were no longer required in the absence of any research
G project, and that the fortuitous circumstances of continuous engage-
ment did not confer any right on the petitioners to be in continued
employment even when no research project was in hand.

Disposiqg of the petitions, this Court,

H HELD: The All India Institute of Medical Sciences set up by·

104
V .L. CHANDRA v. A.1.1.M.S. 105

statute is intended to carry on research in a continuous way to improve
A
the level of medical knowledge. The Institute is entrusted from time to
time with research projects by the World Health Oganisation, the
Indian Council of Medical Research and other government and semi-
government bodies. Therefore, a scheme should be evolved by the Insti-
tute in coordination with the Health Ministry and the Indian Council of
Medical Research so that a team of researchers is built up to meet the B

-- general requirements of research. Certain projects would quite possibly
require specialised hands and on such occasions a special team could be
set up on casual basis by drawing the competent hands from different
institutions for a period but to keep up the tempo of research if a team
of researchers is built up, it would be convenient for the Institute for
purposes of discipline and control as also for efficiency. [1088-C J
c
The Health Ministry must also sponsor continuous research pro-
jects in the field of medicine and health and for such purpose several
projects should be listed out from time to time and entrusted to the
respondent-Institute as also a similar Institute at Chandigarh and to
Institutes as and when set up elsewhere. This would assist in updating D
relevant medial information and knowledge, apart from building up a
scientific tone and temper for general circulation. IIOSD-E)

The Institute should initiate seriously action in this regard with-
out delay and the Ministry of Health and Indian Council of Medical
Research should collaborate with the Institute. I J08EJ E

Since the respondent-Institute has immediately no scope to
employ the petitioners, excepting the one already retained, the remain-
ing three petitioners should be provided employment either as Resear-
chers or in any suitable alternative employment until their inclusion in a
team of researchers is considered. The Indian Council of Medical F
Research should take appropriate steps to offer adequate employment
to the three petitioners within two months hence. If necessary, the
Ministry of Health should cooperate and place adequate funds at the
disposal of the Indian Council of Medical Research: I108F-HJ

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Civil Nos. 999 of G
I988 and 1043 of I989.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

R.K. Jain, Rakesh K. Khanna, Ms. Sangeeta Manda!, Surya
Kant and R.P. Singh, (NP) for the Petitioner~. H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990) 2 S.C.R.

S. Hegde, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. A. Subhashini,
A Ms. Uma Jain and R.K. Mehta for the Respondents. _,,._
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RANGANATH MISRA, J. Both· these are applications under
B Art. 32 of the Constitution, the first one by three petitioners and the
second by one. The respondent All India Institute of Medical Sciences
has been set up under a Central Act of that name of 1956. Section 13 of
the Act provides the objects of the Institute which are:

"(a) to develop patterns of teaching in udergraduate and
post-graduate medical education in all its branches so as to
--
c demonstrate a high standard of medical education to all
medical colleges and other allied institutions in India; (b)
to bring together in one place educational facilities of the
highest order for the training of personnel in all important
branches of health activity; and (c) to attain self-sufficiency
D in post-graduate medical education.·:

Section 14 of the Act lays down the functions of the Institute
and, inter alia provides in els. (a) and (b ):

"14. With a view to the promotion of the objects specified
E under section 13, the Institute may-

(a) provide for undergraduate and post-graduate
teaching in the science of modern medicine and other allied
sciences including physical and biological sciences;

, F (b) provide facilities for research in the various
branches of such sciences";

Petitioners have alleged that ever since its inception the Institute
has taken up various research projects and has made valuable con-
tribution to the updating of medical knowledge and building up
G coordinated research activity. For the purposes of carrying out such
research programme in con junction with the world Health Organisa-
tion, the Indian Council of Medical Research and other celebrated
organisations-both national and international-research projects are
undertaken by the Institute by employing researchers. For the carrying
out of the assignments of research projects the petitioners were
H employed more than a decade ago and their assertion to the effect that
V.L. CHANDRA v. A.1.1.M.S. !MISRA, J.] 107

they have continuously worked for more than 10-15 years has not been
A
disputed. Petitioners have also asserted that they have worked to the
satisfaction of the authorities and the guides and there is no denial of
that fact too. It is the case of the petitioners that by working for such a
long period continuously and in different projects under different
guides, they have picked up the requisite expertise which would be
useful in carrying out any normal research project. Petitioners allege B
that there is work in the hands of the Institute but petitioners' employ-
ment excepting in the case of Dr. Jasbir Kaur Dhawan (Kochhar),
petitioner no. 3 in the first writ petition, as Researchers have now been
terminated. They contend that having worked for a long period in the
Institute they have reached an age in life where they are no more
entitled to enter into Government service or any other suitable public
employment. While they have gathered the requisite expertise and are
c
useful for the purpose of assisting research programme with the depri-
vation of their employment and faced with the ban of over age for any
public employment they are deprived of the source of sustenance and
.- the nation is deprived of their useful service.
D
The Institute, the Union of India in the Ministry of Health and
the Indian Council of Medical Research have responded to the notice
on the petition. A common affidavit has been filed purporting to be on
behalf of the respondents by the Director of the Institute. It has been
stated therein that the Institute is assigned projects and the Project
. Guides pick up Researchers depending upon suitability. The employ- E
ment is project-wise and once the project is complete, the job comes to
an end. The fact that there has been continuous engagement available
to the petitioners does not change the nature of employment and the
fortuitous circumstance of continuity does not confer any right in the
petitioners to be continued in employment even when the Institute
does not have any research project in hand. It has been specifically F
pleaded that the services of the petitioners are not required any longer
in the absence of any research project with the Institute where their
services would be suitable.

The other two respondents being the Union of India and the
Indian Council of Medical Research have not filed any counter- G
affidavit of their own. The Institute and the Union of India appeared
through separate Advocates at the time of hearing.

Mr. Hegde, learned Additional Solicitor General indicated his
sympathy to the cause of the petitioners and took an adjournment
from the Court to explore the possibility of offering a solution to the H
!08 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1990] 2 S.C.R.

problem and returned to tell us that though there was a human pro-
A
blem, no solution could be worked out. .._,_.
The Institute set up by statute is intended to carry on research in
a continuous way to improve the level of medical knowledge. Under
the Act the Institute is an autonomous body though the Chairman
B thereof is no other than the Union Minister of Health. It is true that
the Institute is entrusted from time to time with research projects by

~
the World Health Organisation, the Indian Council of Medical
Research and other government and semi-government bodies. It is
appropriate that a scheme should be evolved by the Institute in coordi-
nation with the Health Ministry and the Indian Council of Medical
..._
Research so that a team of researchers is built up to meet the general
c requirements of research. It is qmte possible that certain projects ---
would require specialised hands and on such occasions a special team
could be set up on casual basis by drawing the competent hands from _,,_____
different institutions for a period but to keep up the tempo of research
if a team of researchers is built up, it would be convenient for the
' D Institute for purposes of discipline and control as also for efficiency.
The Health Ministry must also sponsor continuous research projects in
the field of medicine and health and for such purpose several projects
should be listed out from time to time and entrusted to the respondent-
Institute as also a similar Institute at Chandigarh and to institutes as
and when set up elsewhere. This would assist in updating relevant
E medical information and knowledge, apart from building up a scien- .>:
tific tone and temper for general circulation. We commend that the
Institute initiates seriously action in this regard without delay and we
suggest that the Ministry of Health and the Indian Council of Medical
Research collaborate with the Institute to work out the same.
•
F Respondent no.3-Indian Council of Medical Research has not
chosen to appear separately before us inspite of service of notice.
Since we have been told that the respondent-Institute has immediately
no scope to employ the petitioners excepting the one that we have
named above, we direct that the remaining three petitioners in these
two petitions should be provided employment either as Researchers or
G in any suitable alternative employment until their inclusion in a team
of researchers i~ considered. The Indian Council of Medical Research
shall take appropriate steps to offer adequate employment to the three
petitioners within two months hence. If the question of funding ~l-.-
becomes necessary, we direct the Ministry of Health to cooperate
and place adequate funds at the disposal of the Indian Council of
H Medical Research.
V.L. CHANDRA v. A.1.1.M.S. [MISRA, J.] 109

These two petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions A
and without any order for costs, with liberty to the petitioners to
apply, with the fond hope that all concerned will appreciate the spirit
of the order and implement the direction in the proper way as
stipulated.

N.P.V. Petitions disposed of. B

----

)