07-08-2006, 01:26 AM
<b>Delhi HC stays Venugopal's dismissal</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In his petition, Venugopal has also sought disqualification of the Health Minister on the ground that he was holding an office of profit as the president of the premier institute.
What can be described as the winning point that went in the favour of the director in the marathon three hour argument was the unsatisfactory submission put forth by Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam.
Basing his argument on regulation 31 of the AIIMS Act which says that the services of the director can be terminated if the institute was of the opinion that the decision was in "public interest", the ASG could not adequately explain the ground of "public interest" in Venugopal's case.
The regulation also states that such an act could not be implemented unless a notice of at least three months was served on the person or three months salary and allowance was advanced to him.
On Thursday, senior counsel Arun Jaitley appearing on behalf of Venugopal had stated that according to the rules and regulations of AIIMS and an earlier Supreme Court decision, the tenure appointment of the AIIMS Director (which is of five years) could not have been curtailed without having justified reasons and issuance of notice. "Today in the entire medical fraternity there is a sense of revulsion at this kind of action. Ministerial jobs are not to create traffic jam in the system," Jaitley stated before the court on Friday while arguing the case.
Meanwhile, on the issue of a complete washout of the termination order from the agenda papers of July 5 meeting, <b>the Government contended, "the decision was taken in anguish". When asked, the counsel for the Government said that the last minute addition was done to the agenda papers only after all efforts at requesting Venugopal to relinquish his post bore no fruit.</b>
<b>Jaitley also came down heavily against the Government's stance which stated that Venugopal had made certain remarks against the Government. Refuting the contention he said that the allegation was completely baseless with respect to a footage of a television channel that affirmed the Government's stand as negative. </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In his petition, Venugopal has also sought disqualification of the Health Minister on the ground that he was holding an office of profit as the president of the premier institute.
What can be described as the winning point that went in the favour of the director in the marathon three hour argument was the unsatisfactory submission put forth by Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam.
Basing his argument on regulation 31 of the AIIMS Act which says that the services of the director can be terminated if the institute was of the opinion that the decision was in "public interest", the ASG could not adequately explain the ground of "public interest" in Venugopal's case.
The regulation also states that such an act could not be implemented unless a notice of at least three months was served on the person or three months salary and allowance was advanced to him.
On Thursday, senior counsel Arun Jaitley appearing on behalf of Venugopal had stated that according to the rules and regulations of AIIMS and an earlier Supreme Court decision, the tenure appointment of the AIIMS Director (which is of five years) could not have been curtailed without having justified reasons and issuance of notice. "Today in the entire medical fraternity there is a sense of revulsion at this kind of action. Ministerial jobs are not to create traffic jam in the system," Jaitley stated before the court on Friday while arguing the case.
Meanwhile, on the issue of a complete washout of the termination order from the agenda papers of July 5 meeting, <b>the Government contended, "the decision was taken in anguish". When asked, the counsel for the Government said that the last minute addition was done to the agenda papers only after all efforts at requesting Venugopal to relinquish his post bore no fruit.</b>
<b>Jaitley also came down heavily against the Government's stance which stated that Venugopal had made certain remarks against the Government. Refuting the contention he said that the allegation was completely baseless with respect to a footage of a television channel that affirmed the Government's stand as negative. </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->