ROHTAK: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the operation of the order reappointing Dr Suresh Kumar Singhal as director of Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma University of Health Sciences (PGIMS), Rohtak, for a further three-year term. It directed the Haryana government to entrust the charge to a suitable person below 65 years of age in accordance with the applicable rules and statutes.
Meanwhile, Dr Sujata Shetty is currently holding the charge of director. Dr Manjunath B C, senior professor-in-charge in the university’s public relations department, said Singhal had been on leave for the past several days and that Shetty had been assigned the responsibility even before the High Court passed its interim order.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar passed the order on October 16 while hearing a writ petition filed by Dr Anil Pannikker (CWP-34726-2026), challenging the reappointment order dated August 13, 2026. The court directed the additional chief secretary, department of medical education and research, Haryana, to file an affidavit within two weeks explaining the legal basis for the reappointment, the authority for relaxing the prescribed age limit and the status of the regular recruitment process.
Attempts were made to contact PGIMS director Dr Suresh Kumar Singhal by phone to seek his response to the court order, but he did not answer. Vice-chancellor Dr H K Aggarwal was also contacted twice on his mobile phone for his comments, but he did not answer either call.
The petitioner argued that Singhal attained the age of 65 on July 31, 2026, and was no longer eligible to continue as director under Statute 3, which governs the appointment and tenure of the post.
The statute provides for a three-year tenure, which may be renewed, but stipulates that a director cannot continue in office after attaining the age of 65, irrespective of whether the tenure has expired.
The petitioner contended that neither the Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma University of Health Sciences Act, 2008, nor the statutes framed under it or the applicable service rules empower any authority to relax the prescribed upper age limit. The August 13 reappointment order was therefore challenged as being contrary to the governing statutory provisions.
These are the petitioner’s submissions, and the High Court has not yet delivered a final ruling on the legality of the reappointment.
The petitioner submitted that Singhal had initially been entrusted with the officiating charge of director through an order dated November 22, 2024, pending the appointment of a regular incumbent.
The university subsequently initiated a regular recruitment process through a public advertisement that prescribed 65 years as the maximum age limit. However, the process was not concluded, according to the petition.
The High Court has sought a detailed explanation from the state government on the steps taken under the recruitment advertisement, the reasons for not completing the process and whether any decision was taken to discontinue, abandon or defer it. If such a decision was taken, the government must disclose the reasons and identify the authority responsible.
The court has also sought a copy of the state government’s recommendation forming the basis of the August 13 order, along with the supporting official records.
The additional chief secretary has been directed to explain the legal provision, if any, that permits Singhal’s reappointment for a further three-year term despite the prescribed age limit. The affidavit must identify the competent authority that granted any relaxation and detail the procedure followed.
The government has also been asked to provide information on compliance with directions issued through a communication dated April 15, 2026, which was referred to during the proceedings.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hukam Chand Shyam Lal v. Union of India (1976), the High Court observed, prima facie, that where the law prescribes a particular procedure for exercising a power, that procedure must be followed. The court said the respondents could not bypass the requirements of Statute 3 through an administrative order.
