The Delhi High Court has admitted a writ petition filed by Dr. Praveen Singh, challenging his exclusion from an interview for the position of Associate Professor in Cardiology at Rajiv Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital (RGSSH). The court has issued notices to the Government of NCT of Delhi and RGSSH, directing them to submit counter affidavits within two weeks.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Prateek Jalan observed that the petition raises significant concerns regarding alleged arbitrary and discriminatory actions by RGSSH in the selection process. The court has scheduled the next hearing for March 4, 2025.
What Exactly Is The Dispute
Dr. Singh is an eminent interventional cardiologist with over 20 years of experience. He applied for the advertised position after fulfilling all eligibility criteria. However, on the eve of the interview, Rajiv Gandhi Super Speciality Hospital issued an order barring his participation, citing his earlier termination on alleged disciplinary grounds. This decision, according to Dr. Singh, is baseless, arbitrary, and a violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petition highlights that Dr. Singh’s earlier termination, which followed allegations of misconduct, was not substantiated. The Governing Council of RGSSH had acknowledged in its minutes that investigations into the allegations were incomplete and had not resulted in any definitive conclusions. Moreover, the Delhi Police and the hospital’s vigilance officer had cleared Dr. Singh of wrongdoing.
Arguments and Relief Sought
Dr. Singh’s counsel, Advocate Deepak Bajpai, argued that the exclusion violated principles of natural justice, as no prior notice or opportunity for representation was afforded to the petitioner. The exclusion was also served at the last minute, depriving him of legal recourse.
The petition seeks to:
- Quash the exclusion order issued by RGSSH
- Put the faculty selection process on hold until the case resolved
- Allow Dr. Singh to participate in the interview
Court Observations
While admitting the petition, the court noted that fairness in public employment processes is paramount. It refrained from issuing an interim stay, acknowledging the appointment of another candidate, but assured the petitioner that his claims would be duly examined.
Implications
The case underscores the importance of transparency and adherence to legal procedures in public employment. It also highlights the challenges faced by professionals in overcoming systemic barriers and alleged vendettas.
As the matter progresses, stakeholders await the court’s judgment, which could set a precedent for similar cases involving public sector employment disputes.
