Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court last week expressed displeasure over largescale vacancies in faculty of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) here, remarking that its condition was “worse than govt hospitals”.The court acted on a TOI report published on January 2 based on information obtained under RTI Act, which revealed that 137 of 373 sanctioned faculty posts at AIIMS Nagpur were lying vacant. The data also pointed to similar shortages across several AIIMS institutions in the country.Hearing the matter, a division bench comprising Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode noted that of the 373 sanctioned professor posts at Maharashtra’s only AIIMS in Nagpur, 137 remained vacant, approximately 36.7% of the total strength. Senior advocate Jugalkishore Gilda, who was appointed amicus curiae in the matter, was assisted by advocate Shaunak Kothekar.The judges observed that merely pointing to deficiencies in other AIIMS institutions could not justify vacancies in Nagpur. “It cannot be defended by saying others are worse,” the bench indicated, directing that a detailed report on vacant posts be placed on record. The Central govt counsel was also asked to personally visit the prestigious institute and submit a status report on the prevailing conditions.During the hearing, counsel for AIIMS, Mugdha Chandurkar, submitted that compared to other AIIMS institutions across India, the Nagpur unit filled a significant number of posts and vacancies were relatively fewer. The bench, however, recorded its dissatisfaction with the explanation.“Only inaugurating an institution with grandeur is not enough. Running it properly is more challenging and essential,” the court remarked. It added such hospitals are established to provide medical services to poor patients and “they must be taken care of”.Experts say shortage of faculty affects patient care, surgeries, intensive care services, and medical education. The AIIMS counsel informed that repeated advertisements were issued to fill positions, but several posts received no applications. In some cases, candidates applied but did not appear for interviews; in others, selected candidates did not join or later resigned. The court was informed that higher-paying opportunities in the market reduced doctors’ willingness to serve at the institute. The bench sought a comprehensive report on vacancies and adjourned the matter for further hearing.
