Imphal, February 11, 2010: An interim ruling of the Gauhati High Court on February 12 has directed RIMS authorities to put on hold all processes related to recruitment of posts for the Dental College, RIMS.

The ruling by Justice T NK Singh of the Court's Imphal bench also ordered for keeping in abeyance, until further order, result of the DPC for the said posts which include one Principal of the proposed Dental college, three professors, six readers/associate professors and 18 lecturers/assistant professors.

The Court's ruling is based on a writ petition filed by one Tokpam Nabachandra Singh of Uripok Dewan Leikai, who is the Professor and Head of Department of Dentistry, RIMS.

Nabachandra's counsel M Hemchandra contended before the court that publication of an advertisement for recruitment of the above mentioned post was in violation of the Constitution and Bye laws of premier medical institution.

Referring to guidelines of the RIMS, the counsel argued that the recruitment advertisement violates a specific decision of the Executive Council of the Institution that prohibits initiation of new recruitment processes when the tenure of the Director is in service extension period, which was the case when Dr L Fimate floated the advertisement on February 2. Explaining further, the counsel cited decision adopted at the 40th meeting of the RIMS Executive Council on November 12, 2009 that approved further extension of service of Dr Fimate for six months effective from December 21 of the same year, which was after the expiry of an earlier extension for a year.

The same session, according to the counsel, also adopted a resolution (item No 7) whereby the present Director was barred from making fresh appointments either on contract or adhoc basis, or take any decision that entails substantial financial implication for the institute 'without prior approval of the Board'.

Dr Fimate is informed to have been appointed for the five year term as RIMS Director on december 22, 2009.However, the counsel of RIMS Director (one of four respondents) namely Serto Kom prevailed upon the Judge of the advertisement being published after necessary approval was obtained in addition to a new constitution amending the clause pertaining to fresh appointments by the present Director.

"By the memorandum issued by the present incumbent of the office of the Director himself being No.B/2383/2008-RIMS, Imphal dated 17.5.2008, a committee was constituted to work out modalities for starting the (dental) College.

In that Committee, the present petitioner is the convenor and the present incumbent of the office of the Director, RIMS is the Chairman," Serto pointed out, as per case dossiers received here.

Even though the petitioner's counsel challenged his rival with the assertion that establishing new Dental College in the name of Dental College, RIMS with an annual intake capacity of 50 students for 2009-10 academic session had been disapproved and such disapproval also intimated by the Secretary, Dental Council of india (July 18, 2008), the court taking into account seriousness of the allegation ordered counsel of the second respondent N Ibotombi to provide more inputs on the matter.

Advocate N Ibotombi, who is representing the second respondent, the Union of India, represented by Secretary, Ministry of health Family Welfare (North East Division) has been asked to provide details on any order passed by the competent authority of the Central Government or the dental Council of India for allowing the Director RIMS to appoint professors and other for the dental college in question.

Moreover, advocate Serto has also been directed to authenticate approval of the Executive Council and also any decision of the Committee constituted on July 7, 2008 through compliance to legal proceedings, which include filing of affidavit on behalf of the Director RIMS.

Even the court taking into account arguments by either sides was about to pass the interim order for maintaining status quo on the matter, advocate Serto kom conveyed of a DPC held earlier in the day, to which the single bench ruling directed that proceedings of the DPC too should be kept in sealed cover under further order.

Comment