Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Suresh Kumar vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 11 December, 2025
1
OA No.4213/2018
Item No.45/C4
CENTRALADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 4213/2018
Reserved on: 13.11.2025
Pronounced on: 11.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member(A)
Suresh Kumar (38 years)
S/o Tara Chand, Group 'B'
Nursing Officer
Central Jail Hospital
Tihar, New Delhi.
... Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Ajai Kumar Srivastava)
Versus
1. All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)
(Through its Director)
Ansari Nagar
New Delhi.
2. Secretary
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Satish Kumar)
Digitally signed by
JYOTI JAIN
JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2025.12.15
15:23:28+05'30'
2
OA No.4213/2018
Item No.45/C4
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S, Khati, Member (A) :
In the present Original Application (O.A.) filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant, who is working as Nursing Officer since 18.06.2009 in Central Jail Hospital, Tihar, is aggrieved by the Recruitment Notice No.78/2018 dated 27.09.2018 (Annexure A-1) regarding recruitment for the post of Nursing Officer, which 1s not in line with the Model Recruitment Rules, to the extent that while the impugned Notice has prescribed the upper age limit as "Not exceeding 30 Years" whereas Model Recruitment Ru1es prescribes the same as "Not exceeding 35 Years", which is arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Respondent No.2, i.e. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, had issued draft Model Recruitment Rules in accordance with DoPT's O.M. No.AB.4017/61/2008-Estt(RR) dated 03.10.2015 (Annexure A-
2). The age Limit for recruitment of Nursing Officer as prescribed in draft Model Recruitment Rules and adopted by leading hospitals/premier institutions, such as, Safdarjung Hospital, Ram Manohar Hospital, Jawahar Lal Institute of P.G Medical Education & Research (JIPMER), an institution of National Importance, is "Not exceeding 35 years".
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 15:23:28+05'30' 3 OA No.4213/2018 Item No.45/C4 2.1 It is further submitted that Respondent No.1 - AIIMS is also in process of amending the Recruitment Rules in line with the Model Recruitment Rules of the DoPT. However, in the meantime, AIIMS, New Delhi vide the impugned Notice dated 27.09.2018 on behalf of AIIMS Bhopal, Jodhpur, Patna and Raipur, invited online applications for recruitment of Nursing Staff (Staff Nurse Grade-II) Group 'B' on direct recruitment basis in the level 07 in the pay matrix (pre-revised Pay Band-2 of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay Rs.4600/-), with prescribed age limit of 21-30 years (not exceeding 30 years) and they also have given relaxation of 5 years to contractual employees which, according to the applicant, is arbitrary and discriminatory.
2.2 He also referred to Section 28 of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 (AIIMS Act, 1956), which provides as follows:
"Power to make Rules (1) The Central Government, after consultation with the Institute may, by notification in the official Gazette, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act:
Provided that consultation with the Institute shall not be necessary on the first occasion of the making of rules under this section, but the Central Government shall take into consideration any suggestions which the Institute may make in relation to the amendment of such rules after they are made."
2.3 He contended that the power of making Recruitment Rules and prescribing age qualification lies with the respondents but that does Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 15:23:28+05'30' 4 OA No.4213/2018 Item No.45/C4 not give them license to take arbitrary and discriminatory decisions If the power of framing recruitment rules of AIIMS lies with the Respondent No.2 (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare) then it is illegal on their part to discriminate between AIIMS vis-à-vis leading hospitals/premier institutions, such as Safdarjung Hospital, Ram Manohar Hospital, Jawahar Lal Institute of P.G. Medical Education & Research (JIPMER) an institution of National Importance and the Model rules when post of Nursing Officer is one and same and belongs to level 7 in AIIMS, RML Hospital, JIPMER, Safdarjung Hospital. Therefore, action of respondents are direct violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, it is arbitrary, discriminatory and lacking rational nexus with the post. Moreover, Respondent No. 1 is not empowered to frame the Recruitment rules for AIIMS which lies with Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. 2.4 The learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the following case laws:
(i) Bennett Coleman & Co. vs Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106, wherein it has been stated that "the guiding principle underlying Article 14 is that all persons in the same conditions and things similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Laws should be applied to all in the same condition".
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 15:23:28+05'30' 5 OA No.4213/2018 Item No.45/C4
(ii) Indian Express Newspapers vs Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 319, wherein the Apex Court has observed that "not only should the laws be non-discriminatory for persons in the same condition but the processes of implementation by the administrative agencies should also not discriminate between them".
(iii) Man Singh vs State of Haryana & Others, 2008 (7) SC AIR 750, wherein it has been ruled that "....any act of the repository of power whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial is open to challenge if is arbitrary or unreasonable that not fair minded authority could have ever have had it".
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit, submitted that the respondent No.1, i.e. AIIMS, New Delhi, is an autonomous Institution under Ministry of Health and family welfare, Government of · India. The Recruitment Rules of AIIMS, New Delhi are approved by Union, Ministry of Health and family welfare. The Recruitment Rules for the post of Nursing Officer in AIIMS have been amended vide letter No. F.1-21/2016- Estt.(RCT)P.F dated 02.11.2017 (Annexure R-1 (colly.)), as per detail given below:-
"Educational Qualification:-
I. (i) B.Sc. (Hons) Nursing/B.Sc. Nursing from an Indian Nursing Council registered Institute or University, OR B.Sc.(post-certificate)/post Basic B.Sc. nursing from an Indian Nursing Council recognized Institute or University Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 15:23:28+05'30' 6 OA No.4213/2018 Item No.45/C4
(ii) registered as Nurse or Midwife in state/Indian Nursing Council OR II (i) Diploma in General Nursing Midwifery from an Indian Nursing Council registered institute /Board or Council;
(ii) Registered as Nurse & Midwife in state/Indian Nursing Council; (iii) Two years experience in minimum 50 bedded Hospital after acquiring the educational qualification mentioned above."
3.1 He also submitted that it is an admitted position that Model Recruitment Rules are at draft stage and the same is notified in Gazetted and incorporated by AIIMS, and the same cannot be acted upon for making recruitment.
3.2 Further, the interim relief granted by Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal is on the issue of procuring educational qualification. It does not dwell on the issue of age limit for recruitment, hence, this order as well as the judgments relied upon by the applicant are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3.3 He also relied upon the following laws laid down by the Apex Court on the issue involved in this case:-
(i) Judgment in the case of Union of India vs Shuvbachan Rai, 2001(9)SCC 356, wherein it has been held that "prescribing of age limit or extent of relaxation to be given for a particular post are essentially matters of Government policy and framing of rules for the same could not termed as arbitrary."
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 15:23:28+05'30' 7 OA No.4213/2018 Item No.45/C4
(ii) Judgment in the case of Commissioner, Corporation of Madras vs Madres Corporation Teachers' Mandram & Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 253, wherein the Apex Court held that "It is now well settled that it is open to the appointing authority to lay down requisite qualifications for recruitment to government service as this pertains to the domain of policy".
(iii) Judgment in the case of V.K. Sood vs Secretary, Civil Aviation, 1993 supp.(3) SCC 9, whereby it has been held that "It is for authorities to prescribe qualifications and it is not in the province of the court to prescribe qualifications or entrench into such matters". 3.4 In view of above settled position of law, the instant O.A. preferred by the applicant is not maintainable in view of the fact that in prayer clause, the applicant has not challenged that constitutional vires/legal competence of the existing recruitment Rules for the post of Nursing officer of AIIMS, New Delhi. Hence, the O.A. is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and carefully gone through the pleadings/judgments placed on record as well as the written synopsis filed by the applicant.
5. In the instant O.A., the applicant has challenged the age limit of 30 years prescribed by AIIMS, New Delhi for recruitment of Nursing Officers under Recruitment Notice No. 78/2018, whereas the draft Model Recruitment Rules of the Ministry of Health and Family Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 15:23:28+05'30' 8 OA No.4213/2018 Item No.45/C4 Welfare stipulate 35 years age limit. The applicant asserted that setting the age limit at 30 years in contrast of 35 years as prescribed in the Model Recruitment Rules, is arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution which mandate that laws and administrative actions be non-discriminatory and equitable. The applicant highlighting that institutions like Safdarjung and JIPMER, which are comparable to AIIMS in stature, prescribe an age limit of 35 years for similar posts, argued that AIIMS, being an autonomous institution, does not have the authority to amend the Recruitment Rules, as the power lies with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
6. After carefully examining the pleading on record, it is evident that Section 28 of the AIIMS Act, 1956, empowers the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to prescribe recruitment rules, not AIIMS itself, whereas the applicant's claim is that AIIMS' independent action in prescribing a lower age limit violates this principle. The fact, however, remains that as an autonomous Institution, AIIMS may have the right to amend or set specific recruitment rules, provided they do not violate overarching legal provisions.
7. In the O.A. itself, the applicant has mentioned that AIIMS is under process of amending the Recruitment Rules. It is an admitted position that the draft Recruitment Rules cannot be enforced until finalized, which takes time in obtaining approval of the Competent Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 15:23:28+05'30' 9 OA No.4213/2018 Item No.45/C4 Authorities before notification. Hence, in the meantime, appointments were made as per the old Recruitment Rules. Therefore, the action of AIIMS cannot be challenged for non- compliance with draft Recruitment Rules that are still under consideration.
8. Additionally, determining the age limit is a policy matter and falls within the discretion of the Appointing Authority. AIIMS has the discretion to set recruitment criteria as part of its policy framework, within the bounds of the law. According to established case laws, already cited hereinabove, such decisions cannot be considered arbitrary unless they are irrational or unreasonable. The fact that the draft Recruitment Rules have not yet been finalized means the respondent-AIIMS cannot be compelled to follow them.
9. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 06.02.2020 while dismissing MA 414/2020 seeking interim direction, it has been observed by this Tribunal that being government employee the applicant is entitled for 5 years relaxation, however, as per applicant's own submissions he had already attained 38 years of age, meaning thereby, he would be around 43 years of age by now.
10. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the action of respondent No.1-AIIMS in setting the age limit is within discretion of the AIIMS administration, especially when the Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN JYOTI JAIN Date: 2025.12.15 15:23:28+05'30' 10 OA No.4213/2018 Item No.45/C4 draft Recruitment Rules are not legally binding as not yet finalised. Thus, the claim of the applicant is not acceptable.
11. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jyoti/
Digitally signed by
JYOTI JAIN
JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2025.12.15
15:23:28+05'30'