In Brief
Two cardiac surgeons (petitioners) challenged their seniority position relative to a colleague (fourth respondent), all appointed as Additional Professors at AIIMS in 2005. The petitioners argued that under a 1997 policy, seniority should be based purely on grades assigned by the Selection Committee, where they claimed to have been rated equally or higher. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the policy permitted (not mandated) the Committee to exercise discretion beyond mechanical grade summation, considering performance, records, and expert opinion. Critically, the twelve-year delay in challenging a settled seniority order, with knowledge of consistent administrative reaffirmations since 2012, precluded relief. Unsettling a long-standing seniority arrangement would be iniquitous.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.