Dr. Akshya Kumar Bisoi v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Background
Two cardiac surgeons at AIIMS, selected as Additional Professors in September 2005, challenged their seniority ranking below a third colleague, arguing that a 1997 AIIMS policy required seniority to be fixed strictly by the numerical grades given by the Selection Committee and outside experts, which they claimed would place one of them on top. AIIMS's Governing Body had reviewed and reaffirmed the original 2005 ranking on at least four separate occasions between 2012 and 2016, including after a government directive to re-examine the issue. The doctors eventually petitioned the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 in November 2017, more than twelve years after the original selection.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the 1997 policy used the word "may" (not "will") be made on the basis of expert gradings, meaning the Selection Committee was not bound to a purely mechanical totalling of marks and could weigh the experts' views along with other relevant factors, so the original 2005 ranking did not breach the policy. The Court also held that the twelve-year delay in approaching the courts, during which the petitioners were aware the Governing Body had repeatedly upheld the same seniority order, independently disentitled them to relief, citing the principle that stale claims should not be resuscitated. For both reasons, the writ petition was dismissed, with the Court closing on the note that its ruling on seniority cast no doubt on the petitioners' own distinguished service.
Lesson Learnt
A decades-old administrative decision that has been repeatedly reviewed and reaffirmed will not easily be reopened by courts, and unexplained long delay in seeking a legal remedy can defeat an otherwise arguable claim on its own, independent of the claim's merits.