By IANS
New Delhi : Upset over the running feud between Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss and All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Director P. Venugopal, the Supreme Court Monday advised them to give up their "personal differences" in the interest of the premier institute.
A bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan gave the piece of advice while reminding the two of the recent Delhi High Court order, which had said, "The president (Ramadoss) and the director (Venugopal) are expected to leave their personal esteem and differences behind in the larger public interest and work together in the interest of AIIMS, an institute of international recognition.
"This is the only relevant direction," said the bench which comprised, besides Balakrishnan, Justices R.V. Raveendran and H.S. Bedi.
The bench made the observation as it admitted cross-appeals by both the Union Health Ministry and Venugopal against the high court order, which had ruled that though Venugopal cannot hold the post of the head of the department of cardiology, he cannot be removed from his post of AIIMS director without the due process of law.
Admitting the appeals by them, the court also issued notices to the central government, AIIMS and Venugopal on their cross-appeals.
But the apex court advice appeared to be lost on feuding Ramadoss and Venugopal.
Levelling additional allegations against Venugopal, Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanian and advocate Mukul Gupta said that a three-member committee headed by University Grant Commission Chairman U.G Thorat has found that Venugopal had instigated the anti-quota stir last year in the hospital.
He said the report prepared by UGC chairman Prof S.K. Thorat suggested that students from depressed classes were segregated in the institute.
Venugopal's petition, on the other hand, has contended that the continuation of the health minister as the president of the AIIMS was harmful to the institute's autonomy.
In his appeal, he said that a person holding the post of AIIMS director cannot be treated as an employee of the institute and, therefore, there cannot be an upper age limit for appointment to the post.
He also contended that since he was appointed to the office of director on the approval of the Cabinet Committee of Appointments (CCA), no disciplinary proceedings could be initiated without the approval of the CCA.
AIIMS in its appeal has sought a stay of the March 29 Delhi High Court ruling that there was no upper age limit for directors and the prior approval of the government was necessary for removing the director.
The institute has said since the high court has held the director to be an employee, the upper age limit of retirement should be 62 years like others.