E-Paper
HC seeks Govt's reply on Venugopal's appointment
A division bench headed by Justice MK Sharma also granted two weeks time to Venugopal to file his reply on the PIL.
The Centre was on Wednesday pushed into a tricky situation after the Delhi High Court ordered it to file a reply on a PIL challenging the appointment of the AIIMS director P Venugopal.
A division bench headed by Justice MK Sharma also granted two weeks time to Venugopal to file his reply on the PIL filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL).
However, senior counsel Arun Jaitley appearing for Venugopal during his brief submission alleged that the PIL was motivated and inspired by the Government.
The court's direction to the Centre to file its reply on the PIL assumes significance as the Government would now be in an embarrassing situation of defending the appointment of Venugopal as it cannot be expected to denounce its own decision.
However, if the Government defends the appointment, it nevertheless has to be done with a pinch of salt, as Venugopal was recently involved in a public spat with the Union Health Minister A Ramadoss, forcing the Government to terminate his services before the court intervened to stay the move.
The PIL filed by CPIL through counsel Prashant Bhusan had alleged that Venugopal's appointment made in 2003 for a six year term was illegal as the Director was due for his superannuation in 2007.
It was contended that Venugopal's six year term would extend upto 2009 two years beyond the age of his superannuation.
Further the petition complained that Venugopal was not entitled to hold the dual posts -- as Director of the Institute and Head of the Department of Cardio Thorasic Surgery.
In fact, the petition was filed in May this year but at that time Centre sought time to file its reply.
But in the meantime Venugopal and the Minister were engaged in a bitter "power struggle" culminating in the Centre's decision to sack the Director, but the move was stayed by a Single Judge of the High Court.
The Centre, which moved an appeal against the stay order however, withdrew the same on the ground that it would circulate the charge memo among the Institute's Governing Body to initiate a fresh move to oust Venugopal from the post.
However, since the PIL has challenged Venugopal's appointment on technical grounds that he cannot be allowed to continue beyond the age of superannuation, the Government would now be under an obligation to defend Venugopal in the court as it cannot otherwise denounce its own appointment procedure.
Ironically, on Wednesday when the matter came up for hearing, the Additonal Solicitor General PP Malhotra told the court that the Government was yet to formulate its reply.
However, Jaitley rose to allege "the PIL is motivated and inspired by the Government."
Jaitley insisted that it was now for the Government to file a reply and explain it's stance on the issue.
Later, Jaitley in an informal chat with reporters said the Centre cannot oppose Venugopal's appointment as it had defended a similar posting vis-a-vis the Director of the PGI, Chandigarh.
