A Report: AIIMS Ad-hoc appointments

12Nov08

TiTLE: REPORT ON SELECTION AND PROMOTION PROCESS OF AD HOC ASSISTANT PROFESSORS IN THE ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 
 
November 2007
 -=- 

Dr. Karan Singh Yadav, Chairman
Dr. R.Surendran,  Member
Dr. KM Shyamprasad, Member
Dr. K.K.Talwar,  Member
Sh. Raghubir Singh, Memeber 
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
1. INTRODUCTION                                     
   
2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMITTEE 
  2.1. Objectives

3. METHODOLOGY  

4. OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS  
  4.1.  Ad hoc appointments during 1993-2003 
  4.2.  Selection process of 2003. 
  4.2.1. Regularization of ad hoc faculty  
  4.2.2. Reservations  
   
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
  5.1.  On Ad hoc Appointments during 1993-2003 
  5.2. On Appointments and Regularization of ad hoc Assistant  Professors through the Standing Selection Committee of 2003 
  5.3.  On Reservations in Appointments and Promotions 
  5.4.  On Promotions for ad hoc Assistant Professors under the   Assessment Promotion Scheme (APS)
 
  
          

SUMMARY 

 
This report presents the findings, conclusions and recommendations of a Committee set up by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to examine the entire process of selection of Assistant Professors at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) through the Standing Selection Committee of 2003, and their promotion to Associate Professors.  Lok Sabha MP, Dr Karan Singh Yadav, chaired the 5-member expert Committee.

Between 1993 and 2003, the AIIMS did not hold its regular faculty selections because of agitations and litigation by the faculty objecting to reservations for SC/ST/OBC candidates in faculty selections.  Instead, the vacancies in entry-level Assistant Professors’ posts were filled through ad hoc selections and appointments.  The regular selection process was resumed after almost a decade in early 2003 when a Standing Selection Committee was set up to appoint Assistant Professors; these positions were advertised countrywide in 2002.  However, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare received representations that the selection process violated the rules of fair selection, chiefly by appointing an unjustifiably large proportion of ad hoc faculty in the vacant posts, promoting nearly half of this faculty under the Assessment Promotion Scheme soon after, and by not following the GOI’s prescribed reservation policies.  A faculty member also challenged the unfairness of the selection process in court.

The present Committee carried out its review mandate by conducting a systematic review of documents provided by the AIIMS administration.  These included details of the posts advertised and several sets of selection related dossiers, deliberations and notes. The Committee observed that ad hoc selections between 1993-2003 as well as the process of regular selections of 2003 were characterized by a series of arbitrary, in house decisions and actions that violated procedures.  First and foremost, for almost a decade while regular selections were in abeyance, 152 out of 219 entry-level institute faculty was appointed as ad hoc staff in an arbitrary manner.  The Committee did not find the pending court cases as sufficient justification for the administration to not follow any proper process for evaluating and selecting candidates, especially if faculty had to be appointed to this apex institute in such large numbers.  More so as in the first instance, the High Court had dismissed the anti-reservation petition in 2001, and, at no time was there any order or directive from any court that reservations should be held in abeyance, even for selection of ad hoc faculty.  

Regarding the 2003 selections, the Committee noted that for the advertised 170 positions, a large number of candidates from all over the country and abroad had applied and 762 had appeared for the interview.  These included 151 ad hoc Assistant Professors from the institute and also 611 equally suitable candidates (including 209 reserved categories) from the national pool outside the institute.  Selection details available for 162 of the 170 positions revealed that 81% (131) of the 162 positions were filled by candidates from the ad hoc pool and only 19% (28) candidates were from the national pool. Members also found instances of highly meritorious candidates both in the reserved and in the general category who did not find place in the list of selected candidates.  The Committee concluded that the selection process lacked fairness and was designed primarily to regularize the existing ad hoc Assistant Professors in large numbers.  The institute had also found eligible and promoted 64 ad hoc Assistant Professors under the Assessment Promotion Scheme of 01-07-2003, even though, as ad hocs, they did not fulfill the eligibility prerequisite of 4 years of regular service in the institute. This had been done through a series of in-house decisions made by the Institute Body and the Governing body, that the Committee found unlawful as these decisions were in contraventions of Supreme Court interim orders. (All litigation details are provided in the main report).

The Committee concluded that as such none of the appointments made during the 2003 selections could be considered final, as doing so would amount to violation of the Court’s orders.  The institute’s decision to regularize the ad hoc Assistant Professors from the time of their ad hoc appointment was unlawful and the promotions could not be considered as legitimate.
In relation to reservations, the Committee found that first the adoption by the institute of a “floating” rather than a post based criteria in making appointments went against the GOI rules; second that only 40% of the advertised 68 reserved seats were filled (inspite of suitable candidates being available) and third, in contravention of GOI regulations, no relaxations and concessions to facilitate the inclusion of SCs and STs, were announced in the advertisements, recruitment rules, or applied during the selection. All those candidates who made it to the selected list were found to have made it on open merit.   The Committee is of the opinion that the administration failed to accommodate reserved category candidates in a fair and equitable manner.

The Committee recommended that:
>The Institute Body and the Governing Body re-evaluate the selection process and the appointments thus made and introduce strict guidelines to ensure fair and transparent future selections as well as corrections where needed to address the anomalies.
>Supreme Court verdict should be obtained, without any further delay, on all the appointments made during the 2003 selection process.
>The promotions (Assistant Professors to Associate Professors) of 2003 should be reverted until the Supreme Court directive is followed through and the institute obtains further Court orders on the status of the appointments.
>Every future selection process should ensure that the most meritorious faculty is appointed through a stringently fair and transparent selection process that is evident and demonstrable, according to the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
>The reservation policy of the GoI must be followed in all future selections at all levels.
>All future appointments must first ensure that the backlog of reserved category shortfalls are filled on priority before appointing other categories.

Source: Progressive Doctors Association
 

1.  INTRODUCTION
From1993 to 2003 regular faculty selections for the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) were not held because of agitations and court cases by the faculty objecting to reservations for SC/ST/OBC candidates. Vacancies in faculty positions were, however, filled through ad hoc selections and appointments. The AIIMS appointed 152 ad hoc faculty during the period regular selections were held in abeyance (1993-2002/3). Finally, on March 26, 2002, one hundred and seventy posts for assistant professors in medical disciplines were advertised, and, in the month of April 2003, the Standing Selection Committee1 of AIIMS held selections for these posts.  
Representations were made to the Ministry of Health and to the President of the Institute Body that the selection process violated several rules and principles of fair selection, and did not apply reservation policies, thus depriving several meritorious candidates of an opportunity to be appointed as assistant professors. One of the main allegations was that the entire  ad hoc faculty had been regularized through the Standing Selection Committee of 2003. Nearly half of this adhoc faculty who were regularised were also promoted under the Assessment Promotion Scheme, almost immediately following the selection, taking into consideration their ad hoc services, whereas the eligibility conditions required regular service. Dr. Sarman Singh, Additional Professor AIIMS, filed a petition (Dr.Sarman Singh Vs UOI) before the Supreme Court of India under SLP (C) No. 11131/2005 challenging the above selection as adversely affecting the rights of candidates belonging to the reserved categories (SC/ST/OBC). 
1.1.  Constitution of the Committee to examine the entire selection/promotion process of ad hoc Assistant Professor to Associate Professor in AIIMS:
On 22nd January 2007, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare constituted a review committee, chaired by Lok Sabha MP Dr Karan Singh Yadav, to examine the entire Selection/Promotion process of Adhoc Assistant Professor to Associate Professor in the AIIMS (Annex. 1-MOHFW Office Memorandum, dated 22-01-07). This was in response to representations received on the issue of selection of Assistant Professors through the Standing Selection Committee of 2003 and their promotion to Associate Professors, under the Assessment Promotion Scheme (APS) soon after the selections.
Committee members included:
1. Dr. Karan Singh Yadav, MP (Lok Sabha)   Chairman

2. Dr. R.Surendran, Professor & HOD, Govt, Stanley   Member

    Hospital, Chennai

3. Dr.KM Shyamprasad, Vice President, NBE, New Delhi  Member

4. Dr.K.K.Talwar, Director, PGIMER, Chandigarh  Member

5. Shri Raghubir Singh, AS & FA, M/o H&FW  Member

2.  SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMITTEE
 
 

Based on the various representations received in the MoHFW, and Dr.Sarman Singh’s representation and affidavit filed in the Supreme Court of India, the Committee identified the following issues for a thorough study:
There were no regular selections between 1993 and early 20032 for entry level faculty positions in the AIIMS
Adhoc appointments were made to cover for vacancies
Primary eligibility criteria were not observed in the adhoc appointments
All most all the adhoc appointments were regularised during the selection. Majority of the advertised positions were filled by the adhoc faculty, nearly all of them were accommodated in regular faculty positions.
Rules laid out by the government for reservations to the SC/ST/OBC categories had not been observed.
There were no relaxations or concessions to the SC/ST/OBC categories to facilitate their inclusion as required by law.
Nearly half the selected assistant professors from the ad hoc pool were promoted soon after selection, on the basis of their ad hoc services.
 

2.1.  Objectives:
To review/examine the AIIMS selections and promotion process of the year 2003, and the ad hoc appointments made during the period 1993 to 2003 until the regular selections were held.
 

To identify, if any, departures from established criteria in the process of selections and promotions, especially with respect to ad hoc faculty and reserved categories.
3. METHODOLOGY
 

The committee requested the AIIMS administration to provide all the records of the selection of the said assistant professors. The committee looked into the records to determine if the allegations were true.  
The Committee reviewed a comprehensive set of documents that was provided by the AIIMS administration.  The list of documents received and reviewed is annexed (Annex.2). These documents included details of posts advertised, records of the Standing Selection Committee 2003, deliberations of the Selection Committee for promotions under the Assessment Promotion Scheme, and notes for the Governing Body.    
The document review focused on 4 important parts:
The legal proceedings and other events that took place between 1993 and 2002, leading up to the Selection process of 2003.
 

The particulars of the process of selection and its outcomes with respect to ad hoc appointees, the extent to which the selection process abided by the reservation policies for SC, ST and OBCs, and the eligibility and availability of suitable candidates for selection from reserved categories.
 

Legal positions regarding the regularization and promotions of ad hoc faculty.
 

Institute Body and Governing Body decisions related to all of the above. (Annex.3).
4. OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS
 

      4.1.  Ad hoc appointments during 1993-2003
During 1993 – 2003, the AIIMS administration appointed 152 assistant professors3 on an ad hoc basis rather than through a regular selection process.  The administration reasoned that regular selections could not be held as there were pending court cases against reservations in faculty positions.  At the same time the institute needed staff to meet its academic and health care services.  Therefore the institute appointed 152 ad hoc faculty, out of a total number of 219 positions at that level, i.e. for Assistant Professors in medical disciplines.
4.1.1.  The documents reviewed by the Committee showed that over an 8-10 year period the institute appointed a staggering two thirds of its entry-level faculty of Assistant Professors in an ad hoc manner. As no prescribed selection process was followed in these appointments, the criteria for selection can only be termed ‘arbitrary’; giving entry into the institution to faculty whose merit was not evaluated through a proper selection process.   
4.1.2.  The Committee noted that the Faculty Association of AIIMS had filed a writ petition before the High Court in 1994 for exemption of faculty posts from the purview of reservations.  However, the High Court dismissed the petition on 26-11- 2001 (Annex. 4) as the Court saw no reason not to “apply the reservation rule for making regular appointment to the post of Assistant Professor”. Although the Court heard the matter from ‘time to time’ over a prolonged period before finally dismissing the petition, this Committee could not accept that the ongoing legal proceedings provided the institute with sufficient grounds to justify the avoidance of regular selections during this period, especially if faculty needed to be selected in such large numbers.
The Committee further observed that 69 of the 152 ad hoc Assistant Professors – nearly half (45%) the total strength of the ad hoc faculty- had done 2 years or less of service in the institute (see Table 1 below) at the time of the 2003 Selection Committee, as per the Notes that the administration provided to the Governing Body following the 2003 selection process.  This information implied that 45% of the ad hoc faculty had been appointed in the 2 years prior to the Standing Selection Committee meetings of early 2003.  A further break up of the 69 ad hoc faculty revealed that while 22 of them had performed 2 years of service, 23 had performed one year and 24 had performed less than one year of service, indicating that the institute had continued to make ad hoc appointments even after the Hon’ble High Court had dismissed the petition in 2001 and even after the positions had been advertised in early 2002. (Source: Notes for the Governing Body, Item No. GB/04, pp:41)
 

Table 1: No. of years of service of Assistant Professors working on ad hoc basis (total=152)

No. of Asst Professors with 2 or less than 2 years of service 69 (45.3%)
No. of Asst Professors with 3 to 5 years of service 50 (33%)
No. of Asst Professors with 6 to 8 years of service 31 (20.4%)
No. of Asst Professors with more than 8 years of service 2 (1.3%)

Source: Notes for the Governing Body, Item No. GB/04, pp: 41  (These Notes were sent by the administration to the GB to approve the Recommendations of the Standing Selection Committee)
This committee was of the firm opinion that if the institute needed to appoint faculty in such large numbers at least the selection process that was used prior to 1993 could have been used, which was also inclusive of reservations for ST/SCs. At no time was there any order or directive from any court that reservations should be held in abeyance, ( nor was there any kind of a justification to avoid reservations) even for selection of ad hoc faculty.
 
   4.2. Selection process of 2003.
4.2.1. Regularization of ad hoc faculty
The contention of the petition filed by Dr. Sarman Singh vs UOI, was that the regular selection board selected 151 out of the 167 positions of assistant professors from among the adhoc appointees, leaving very few positions (16) for open selection and for reserved category.  The allegation was that the selection process was primarily to regularize the adhoc appointees, and hence all the reserved categories who were adhoc appointees were automatically selected. 
In his petition, Dr. Sarman Singh had stated “the 150 odd Assistant Professors working on ad hoc basis were originally appointed through the back door, without holding the due process of selection.  A number of them did not even fulfill the eligibility condition at the time of their ad hoc appointment.  For example, Dr. Subhadra Sharma, a M.Sc and PhD in Zoology (fisheries) who has been found not-eligible by DGHS, MCI and Ministry of Health for the post of Assistant Professor Laboratory Medicine (haematology) was appointed ad hoc, and later on regularized and promoted to the post of Associate Professor ignoring the more suitable SC and OBC candidates.”
……“That the said Asst. Professors moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No.4225 of 2002) against the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the CWP No. 147 of 2001.  That the Civil Appeal No. 4225 of 2002 was withdrawn from the Hon’ble Supreme Court during summer vacation by the petitioner in the aforesaid appeal.  From the perusal of order dated 25.11.2002 it seems that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the respondent No.2 institute to finalize the process of selection and I.A No.6 filed by the petitioner in Civil Appeal No. 4225 of 2002 was to be put up for consideration thereafter and before any appointments are made.
That the 82 petitioners in CWP no. 147 of 2001 also applied for the respective posts advertised for selection of Asst Professor of different disciplines and they appeared in the interview before Selection Committee in 2003.
That after the withdrawal of the Civil Appeal No. 4225 of 2002, all the 82 petitioners except 4 who had filed the Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were issued appointment letters for the posts of Assistant Professors for which selections were held.  The said selection was turned into a process of regularization and the selection held for the different posts of Asst Professors were merely eye-wash and outside candidates having better merit and experience than the ad-hoc appointees have not been selected.”
4.2.1.i.  The Committee examined the advertised positions and the selections against those.  In the first instance, in the advertisement dated 26.03.2002  (Annex. 5), 164 positions for assistant professors in medical disciplines and 3 positions for lecturers in nursing were advertised.  In the second advertisement, dated 9.08.2002, another 6 positions for Asst. Professors were advertised.  So a total of 170 positions of Asst. Profs were sought to be filled from amongst the best candidates in the country through the selection process of 2003.
In response, a total of 1420 candidates from all over India (including 151 ad hoc Asst. Professors at the institute) and some from outside India had applied for the posts, 1033 were called for the interview, and 762 appeared for the interview.  Among these 209 were from the reserved category and 553 were from the general pool.  The 151 ad hoc Asst. Professors were included in the 762, meaning that there were 611 equally suitable candidates from the national pool outside the instititute who also appeared for the interview.
4.2.1.ii.  From the available documents, this Committee was able to access and study selection details for 162 of the 170 positions.  The Committee noted that 81% (131) of the 1624 positions were filled by candidates from the ad hoc pool .  Only 19% (28) candidates were from the national pool of 611 candidates interviewed.  This also implied that less than 5% of the national pool candidates were selected, as compared to more than 85% from the ad hoc pool. It should be noted that the proportion of ad hoc candidates selected would more likely be closer to 100% if the Committee had full and complete data on all the selections. 
While the Committee did not wish to re-evaluate the entire selection process, the members did however find that there were several instances of highly meritorious candidates both in the reserved and in the general category who did not find place in the list of selected candidates.
Example1: The case of Dr. Subhadra Sharma, referenced earlier in this report in connection with Dr. Sarman Singh’s petition, deserves further elaboration.  
Dr.  Subhadra was one among 4 candidates interviewed for the single vacant post of Asst. Professor, Laboratory Medicine (Haematology).  Her academic qualifications included an M.Sc and a PhD in Zoology without any medical degrees.  With these qualifications, Dr. Subhadra was clearly unsuitable for the advertised position; yet she had been working on an ad hoc basis in the same position since 1996.  She was formally selected for the same position over and above 3 qualified pathologists, all of whom possessed an MD in Pathology and experience in Laboratory Medicine.  One of these, Dr.Krishn Sudha had worked as a Senior Demonstrator, Neuropathology in AIIMS` for 3 years and had subsequently served as a Grade –II Specialist in Pathology at the ESIC. She was also an SC candidate.
Example 2:  Dr. Pradeep Venkatesh was selected for the post of Asst. Prof.  Investigative Laboratory from among 9 candidates interviewed.  All candidates possessed suitable academic qualifications.  However, Dr. Subhash Chand Dabeya – had more publications in indexed journals and moreover belonged to the reserved category.  Nonetheless, Dr Pradeep, who was already working as an ad hoc Asst Professor was selected in preference to the other candidates.
 
 
4.2.1.iii.  Besides the details listed so far, the Committee found another strong thread of evidence to suggest that the selection process was designed mainly to regularize the ad hoc faculty.  This was seen in the sequence of the legal proceedings and their outcomes.  First, it was clear that the petition against reservations was heard and dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 26-11-2001, and a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the FAIIMS in the Supreme Court did not result in favorable verdicts either:
“Any appointment to be made hereafter in accordance with the reservation policy will be only tentative in nature until further orders”.

– Supreme Court interim order 11-01-2002.
‘Keeping in view the important nature of the issues involved for determination of these cases, as also the recurring nature of it and the overall impact which the decision rendered herein may have on many other institutions, as a matter of principle, relating to posts of specialists and superspecialists we consider it appropriate that the matter should be heard by a larger bench. The registry will place these matters  before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders in this regard. Having regard to the importance as well as the urgency involved in the matters, we direct that orders may be obtained urgently from the Hon’ble Chief Justice.”

– Supreme Court order 23-02-2003.
At the time of this Committee’s review, the issue had not moved further in the Supreme Court, and the Committee could not ascertain what prompted the administration to go for regular selections in 2002/03.  What members did find was that during the same period (1993-2001) another petition had been filed in the Delhi High Court by the ad hoc faculty ‘asking for a direction of regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointment on ad hoc basis’. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi heard the matter from time to time and finally dismissed the writ petition on 26.11.2001 at the same time as it dismissed the other petition related to reservations (Source- Notes for the GB, Item No.4). 
A special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court resulted in the following interim order (25-11-2002):
“Let the process of selection be finalized.  The application shall be put up for consideration thereafter and before any appointments are made”.
A decision passed by the Institute Body in its meeting held on 16th Sept. 2002, may have provided the impetus for the regular selection process leading to regularization of the ad hoc faculty almost en masse:
“After detailed deliberation, it was decided that if the Assistant Professors (ad hoc) currently working at AIIMS are selected to regular faculty posts at AIIMS through regular selection process as per the recruitment rules, their period of ad hoc services will also be considered for promotion under APS as one time measure.  However, Sh. B.P. Sharma, Joint Secretary opinioned that the same should be made applicable after they get selected through regular selection process.”

-Notes for GB, Item No.4, pp: 45
However, the Notes to the GB (Item No.4) have acknowledged that in view of the Supreme Court interim orders, an application is required to be filed before the Supreme Court, before declaration of results to the posts of Asst Professors.
The Committee also made note of the fact that both the advertisements (26-03-2002 and 9-8-2002) carried by the institute clearly stated the temporary nature of the posts: “The Appointments made against the posts of Asst Professors will be “tentative in nature” and subject to final outcome of the SLP No. 2106/2002 pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on reservations of posts for SC/ST/OBC.”  On the basis of the available documents, the Committee could not ascertain the status of the SLP and any final decision passed by the Court to confirm the appointments following the 2003 selection process.  The Committee could only infer that under the given circumstances, all appointments made during the Standing Selection Committee meetings of 2003 should perforce be treated as “tentative” or temporary.
4.2.2.   Reservations
Sarnam Singh’s contention was that there were few positions open for reserved category candidates since the selection process was mainly held to regularize the existing ad hoc faculty.  In addition, since there were no relaxations or concessions defined prior to selection, so all the reserved candidates selected were fitting in to the order of merit as for the unreserved category.   
4.2.2.i.  According to the advertisement dated 26.3.2002, the number of reserved posts were 9 for SCs, 13 for STs, and 46 for OBCs – a total of 68 reserved posts from the 167 advertised posts (40%).  However, these were not post based reservations but ‘floating’ ones, wherein the reservation of posts was “to be adjusted wherever the reserved category candidates in the particular discipline/specialties/super specialties will be available.  Hence the reserved category candidate who fulfils the recruitment rules for a particular discipline/specialty/super specialty will be considered including against the reserved posts, subject to his performance in the interview”.  The Committee would like to emphasize that this criteria contravenes the orders of the GOI Department of Personnel and Training, O.M. No.36012/2/96-Estt. (Res.) dated the 2nd July, 1997. This order clearly states that post-based reservations are the rule.
4.2.2.ii.  Against the 68 reserved category posts, 41 candidates (60%) were selected: 18 SC, 6 ST, and 17 OBC.  The Committee noted that all the 18 SC candidates were from the ad hoc pool of faculty.  In the ST and OBC categories there was a shortfall of 7 and 29 candidates respectively.  We have reported earlier in this report that there was a pool of 209 eligible and suitable reserved category candidates who were interviewed.  It was difficult for this Committee to accept that there were not enough eligible candidates to complete the required quotas. 
4.2.2.iii.  Further, the legal position was clear and unambiguous that reservations for jobs have to be applied even for superspecialities (Annex. 4: Delhi High Court Order, 26-11-2001). However the committee observed that AIIMS has not applied reservations in super specialties.
4.2.2.iv.  Government regulations also call for certain relaxations and concessions to facilitate the inclusion of SCs and STs.  These include relaxations in age, qualifications and minimum marks obtained.  No such relaxation was either announced in the advertisements, recruitment rules, or applied during the selection.
Under these circumstances, all those candidates who made it to the selected list were found to have made it on open merit, and did therefore not deserve to be categorised as SC, ST or OBC.  In accordance with the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training O.M. No. 36012/13/88-Est. (Sct) dated 22.05.1989, the Central Government has decided that “in cases of direct recruitment to vacancies in posts under the Central Government, the SC/ST candidates who are selected on their own merit without relaxed standards along with candidates belonging to the other communities, will not be adjusted against the reserved share of vacancies”.  The Committee reviewed the position of SC/ST candidates in the merit list and found that in most instances they figured in the middle or upper half of the list rather than at the bottom of the list.  However they were adjusted against the reserved share of vacancies.
 
  Assessment Promotion Scheme (APS) for ad hoc Assistant Professors
 

Dr Sarman Singh’s petition alleged that the institute had violated the stipulated eligibility criteria for promotions to the post of Associate Professor.  According to the institute’s recruitment rules, a candidate must have served 4 years on the regular post of Assistant Professor to be considered for promotion to Associate Professor.  In direct contravention, 64 ad hoc Assistant Professor were promoted to Associate Professor without possessing the required 4 years of regular service.  He further alleged that reserved category candidates faced a loss due to these ‘illegal’ promotions: “Since the reservation is offered only at the entry level (i.e. at Asst Professor), this illegal selection and promotion of general category candidates against the reserved candidates (7ST, 29OBC) has had immediate effect and constitutional right of 36 candidates from reserved category applicants has been stalled.”
4.3.1.  This Committee reviewed the promotional process and details provided, particularly in the ‘Notes to Governing Body, Items 4 and 5.’ According to the Governing Body Note, Item No. GB/5, it was clear that as per the institute’s Assessment Promotion Scheme, only those Assistant Professors with 4 years of regular service were eligible for promotion to the next grade of Associate Professor.  Despite this provision, the institute had found eligible and promoted 64 ad hoc Assistant Professors to Associate Professors under the Assessment Promotion Scheme of 01-07-2003.
4.3.2.  The Committee learned further from the GB Notes – Items 4 and 5 – that the institute’s administration ascribed the promotions of the 64 Assistant Professors to the decisions of the Institute Body (on 16-09-02) and the Governing Body (on 17-04-03). These decisions are described below in sequence:
The decision to consider the period of ad hoc services of the 64 Assistant Professors for promotion was first approved by the Institute Body in its meeting held on 16-9-02:
“After detailed deliberation, it was decided that if the Assistant Professors (ad hoc) currently working at AIIMS are selected to regular faculty posts at AIIMS through regular selection process as per the recruitment rules, their period of ad hoc services will also be considered for promotion under APS as one time measure.  However, Sh. B.P. Sharma, Joint Secretary opinioned that the same should be made applicable after they get selected through regular selection process.”

-Notes for GB, Item No.4, pp: 45 (para 2.5)
The administration then sought approval from the Governing Body to implement the above decision taken by the Institute Body, as under:
“Approval is also sought to implement the decision taken by the Institute Body dated 16th September, 2002 (para 2.5) to the selected candidates for appointments to the faculty posts.  Their past service as Assistant Professor on ad hoc basis at the AIIMS could be counted to be considered for promotion under Assessment Promotion Scheme (APS) as per existing guidelines for APS.”

-Notes for GB, Item No.4, pp: 45 (para 3.2)
The Governing Body in its meeting held on 17-4-2003 affirmed the Institute Body’s decision, although it was clearly aware of the litigation pending before the Supreme Court on the issue of regularization of ad hoc services.  From their decision it appears that the GB was of the mistaken view that if the petition was withdrawn, the Court’s interim order5 could be overlooked:
“In so far as counting of the past ad hoc services rendered by the now selected Assistant Professors was concerned, the Governing Body was informed of the earlier resolution of the Institute Body for counting the period of ad hoc service.  Since a case was also before the Supreme Court on the issue of regularization of ad hoc services, it was decided that the Court decision in this matter would be awaited.  Further, in the circumstances where the relevant case before the Supreme Court was withdrawn by petitioners in view of the earlier decision of the Institute Body, the ad hoc period could be counted for the purpose of promotion under APS and for this purpose, DPCs would be convened (sic) subsequent date”

-Notes for GB, Item No 5, pp: 72, (last para)
The GB Notes (Item No 5) further state that “keeping in view the aforesaid decision, the petitioner withdrawn (sic) the SLP in the matter of regularization of ad hoc Asst Professors from the Supreme Court of India”.  As a result, 64 Assistant Professors working on ad hoc basis became eligible for promotion as Associate Professor under APS “in view of the aforesaid decision of the Institute Body/Governing Body”.  In the same Notes (Item No. 5), the administration also attempted to justify the Governing Body’s decision thus: “ The Governing Body is the authority competent to make appointments to faculty posts in accordance with Item No. 19 (ii) of Scheduled-I of the AIIMS Regulations, 1999 (as amended)” – para 2.5.
4.3.3.  The Committee members were of the firm view that in the light of the Supreme Court’s interim order, any other decision by any other Body that sought to regularize the ad hoc Asst. Professors’ services from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment, and promote them on those grounds, could only be termed as unlawful.  This was all the more unacceptable as the High Court had already held that regularization cannot be permitted. Withdrawal of the SLP in the Supreme Court alone cannot overturn either the High Court order or the Supreme Court interim order. 
The Committee further held that the Governing Body might be the competent authority to make appointments to faculty posts, but not for regularizing the services of ad hoc faculty and promoting them by not implementing the Court orders.
4.3.4.   This matter was discussed again in the Supreme Court in the Sarman Singh vs GOI petition and the SC has directed the High Court to look at the illegalities involved (Annexure 6).
Another issue that has arisen out of the assessment promotion scheme is the inter se seniority of Associate Professors, Professors and the Professors who came from the direct recruitment and the APS. The DOPT directions in this matter appears to be clear: The DOPT had clearly stated to the Min. of Health that promotions cannot be made with retrospective effect, and even where that were to happen no retrospectively promoted faculty would be considered senior to a directly recruited faculty at the same level.  The DOPT has also pointed out that the AIIMS ACT has not been amended to include APS promotions from Additional to Professors (Source: Communication from the Min of Health to the Director AIIMS, F.No.C-18018/10/2004-ME.I, dated 24th Nov, 2006).  
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 

5.1.  On Ad hoc Appointments during 1993-2003
Between 1993 and 2003, AIIMS appointed 152 ad hoc Assistant Professors out of a total of 219 positions.  These ad hoc appointments constituted nearly two thirds of the entry-level faculty of Assistant Professors in the institute.  Further, 119 of the 152 appointments (78%) appear to have been made in the 5 years preceding the Standing Selection Committee of 2003 (Table 1).  However, no prescribed selection process appears to have been followed in these appointments.  The institute on its part attributed the absence of regular selections to pending litigation related to reservations.
This Committee after reviewing the evidence related to the large numbers of ad hoc faculty that was appointed, the dismissal of petitions by the High Court and unfavorable responses from the Supreme Court, failed to be convinced that the ongoing legal proceedings provided the institute with sufficient grounds to justify the avoidance of regular selections during this period, especially if faculty needed to be selected in such large numbers to meet the institute’s academic and health care service requirements.  The Committee would like to place on record that the ad hoc selection was far from fair and transparent, and can only be termed ‘arbitrary’; giving entry into the institution to faculty whose merit was not evaluated through a proper selection process.   
This committee was of the firm opinion that if the institute needed to appoint faculty in such large numbers at least the selection process that was used prior to 1993 could have been used, which was also inclusive of reservations for ST/SCs. 
By setting aside procedure and arbitrarily appointing nearly two thirds of its entry level faculty as ad hoc Assistant Professors, the administration of the country’s leading medical institute has acted with gross impropriety over nearly a decade.

Recommendation:
 

We would like to reiterate that this deviation from norms, rules and regulations in faculty recruitment and selections should be seen as a serious aberration and under no circumstances set a precedent for future selections, either for this institute or for any other institute in the country.  Under all conditions, institutional faculty selections should be fair and transparent and reservation policies should be strictly applied.  
The Committee would also like to recommend that the IB and the GB should re-evaluate the selection process and the appointments thus made and introduce strict guidelines to ensure fair and transparent future selections as well as corrections where needed to address the anomalies.

5.2.  On Appointments and Regularization of ad hoc Assistant Professors through the Standing Selection Committee of 2003
 
The Standing Selection Committee of 2003 appears to have appointed an exceedingly large proportion of candidates from the ad hoc pool.  In 2002, the institute advertised a total of 170 posts for Assistant Professors in medical disciplines and 762 candidates from all over India (and also from overseas) appeared for the interview.  These included 151 candidates from the ad hoc faculty and 611 from the general pool.  This Committee reviewed selection data that was available for 162 of the 170 vacant posts and found that ad hoc faculty were appointed to 131 or 81% of those posts.  It was not the case that there were not enough suitable candidates in the general pool, to justify the inordinately large proportion of ad hoc faculty selection.  The Committee while reviewing the candidates’ profiles, found several instances of highly meritorious candidates- both in the reserved and in the general category -who did not find place in the list of selected candidates.  The Committee therefore concluded that there was a definite selection bias in favour of candidates from the ad hoc pool, and that the selection process of 2003 was primarily intended for selecting and regularizing the services of as many as possible ad hoc Assistant Professors. 
Further, in relation to the selection process, members of the Committee were concerned that the Supreme Court’s interim orders may not have been taken into due consideration before finalizing the appointments made during 2003. To summarize the legal proceedings here– the FAIIMS had filed a petition in the High Court against reservations for faculty appointments, and the ad hoc faculty had filed another petition asking for regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointment on ad hoc basis.  The High Court dismissed both petitions on 26.11.2001.  
Immediately after, the FAIIMS and the ad hoc faculty then filed two Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in the Supreme Court.  For the former FAIIMS SLP, the Supreme Court passed two subsequent orders: first, that all further appointments would be temporary until further orders (11.02.2003), and second, that due to its importance, the matter should be heard by a larger bench and be placed urgently before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.  For the latter SLP filed by the ad hoc faculty, the Supreme Court interim order stated that first the process of selection should be finalized and before any appointments are made the applications should be put up for consideration.
The Committee further noted that both sets of vacancy advertisements issued in 2002 duly referred to the SLP on reservations pending in the Supreme Court and clearly stated that any appointments made would be tentative in nature and subject to final outcomes of the SLP. 
However the Committee could not find any evidence thereafter that the Supreme Court’s guidance had been taken into account prior to finalizing the appointments.  On the contrary it appeared that the selections thus made were quite permanent in nature since 64 of the ad hoc Assistant Professors who were appointed during the 2003 selection process were also promoted to the next grade of Associate Professors, even though, as ad hocs, they did not fulfill the eligibility prerequisite of 4 years of regular service in the institute.  Through a set of internal decisions arrived at by the Institute Body and the Governing Body, the institute appears to have decided that if the second SLP filed in the Supreme Court by the ad hoc faculty were to be withdrawn, then, for the Assistant Professors selected to regular faculty posts through a regular selection process as per the recruitment rules, their period of ad hoc services would also be considered for promotion under the Assessment Promotion Scheme.  This promotion related issue is discussed further under Section 5.4.
Based on all this information, the Committee concluded that none of the appointments made during the 2003 selections could be considered final until the Supreme Court had delivered its final verdict, as doing so would amount to violation of the Court’s orders.

Regularizing the ad hoc faculty and promoting them through a series of in house decisions by side stepping the Court’s interim orders was an act of legal violation.
In this context it was also brought to the Committee’s attention that the Supreme Court has on several occasions  passed unequivocal orders disqualifying or invalidating regularization of ad hoc/irregular appointments.  In the Civil Appeal No.669 of 1991 of Adi Gupta vs the state of UP, and Appeal No. 395 of 1994, of Arun Kumar Mishra vs the state of UP, Supreme Court judges observed “Those who come by the back door have to go by the same door”.  This view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in several subsequent cases too.
The Committee is surprised that this being a “settled issue” since 1994 as far as the Courts are concerned, the administration still resorted to regularization in an irregular manner.
Recommendation: 
The Supreme Court verdict should be obtained, without any further delay, on all the appointments made during the 2003 selection process, otherwise the working of the institute is likely to be affected and the careers of the junior and mid level faculty will be hanging in a state of prolonged uncertainty.  The disregard to the Supreme Court directive may also result in contempt of Court proceedings against the institute.

5.3.  On Reservations in Appointments and Promotions
 

There were 3 important findings with respect to reservations: first that the adoption by the institute of a “floating” rather than a post based criteria in making appointments went against the rules laid down by the GOI, Dept. of Personnel and Training that clearly establish that post based reservations are the rule.  Second, even though there was an appropriate 40% reserved quota (68 posts for SC/ST/OBCs) in the advertised vacancies, only 41 candidates – or 40%- were selected against the 68 seats.  Moreover, all the 18 SC candidates were from the ad hoc pool of faculty.  In the ST and OBC categories there was a shortfall of 7 (out of 13) and 29 (out of 46) candidates respectively.  There was no apparent reason for this shortfall since there were suitable reserved category candidates available who were not selected.  Third, while Government regulations also call for certain relaxations and concessions to facilitate the inclusion of SCs and STs, no such relaxation was either announced in the advertisements, recruitment rules, or applied during the selection.  All those candidates who made it to the selected list were found to have made it on open merit, and therefore did not deserve to be categorised as SC, ST or OBC.
Consequently, the Committee is of the opinion that the administration – whether due to lack of motivation or lack of information- failed to do all that it needed to do and could have done to accommodate reserved category candidates in a fair and equitable manner.
The Committee viewed the act of appointing 41 reserved category candidates (of whom 18 were from the ad hoc pool) as mere tokenism. The Committee could not accept this as  proof of fulfillment by the AIIMS administration of its constitutional obligations towards the reservation policy of the government of India.

Recommendation:
 

The Committee strongly recommends that the reservation policy of the GoI must be followed in all future selections at all levels consistent with DOPT orders, particularly the post based roster system.
Further, all future appointments must first ensure that the backlog of reserved category shortfalls must be filled on priority before appointing other categories.
 
On Promotions for ad hoc Assistant Professors under the Assessment Promotion Scheme (APS)
 

To reiterate, despite the recruitment provision that only those Assistant Professors with 4 years of regular service could be eligible for promotion to the next grade of Associate Professor, the institute had found eligible and promoted 64 ad hoc Assistant Professors under the Assessment Promotion Scheme of 01-07-2003.  The Institute Body and the Governing Body had, through a series of in-house decisions, decided to regularize their services from the date of their ad hoc appointment, provided they were selected through the regular selection process and provided they withdrew their SLP from the Supreme Court. Following this decision the ad hoc Assistant Professors withdrew their petition and were promoted soon after.  However the Supreme Court interim order – “Let the process of selection be finalized.  The application shall be put up for consideration thereafter and before any appointments are made” (dated 25-11-2002)-seemed to have been overlooked in the process, or, there was a mistaken understanding on part of the institute administration that by withdrawing the petition they could sidestep the Court order.
According to this Committee, the institute’s decision to regularize the ad hoc Assistant Professors from the time of their ad hoc appointment is clearly unlawful. Withdrawal of the SLP in the Supreme Court alone cannot overturn either the High Court order or the Supreme Court interim order.  The promotions are thus illegitimate.

Recommendation
 

The Governing Body/Institute Body is duty bound to take into consideration the decisions of the courts and consequently may reiterate, for the implementation by the institute the tentative nature of the appointments made by the Selection Committee 2003, till such time as the finality is reached through legal processes. 
The committee is of the considered view, that counting of adhoc services rendered by the 64 Assistant Professors who were promoted to Associate Professors had no basis either in Government rules nor did have the support of any court order. The IB/GB may give direction to the AIIMS that promotions so effected may be kept in abeyance pending final decision based on the law. 
General Observations:
It is apparent that this entire state of affairs is about more than just non-acceptance of reservation policies by AIIMS.  It proves that the institute has consistently, and with impunity, violated a number of basic norms and principles of selections and promotions. 
 

2. The selection to the faculty of the AIIMS should ensure that the most meritorious faculty is appointed through a stringently fair and transparent selection process.  The transparency of the selection process should be made evident and demonstrable.  In this era of Right to Information, it is the duty of a premier institution to make available all information on the process of selection, particularly the reasons for disqualification or rejection, to any candidate who desires this information.
 
 
 
 
 
Annexure 4
THE LEGAL POSITION – HIGH COURT POSITION  of 2001
The legal position in respect to the faculty posts are as under: (reproduced from note to the GB Item No.4. (2003)
FAIMS VS AIIMS on the issue of reservation
The faculty association of AIIMS (FAIMS) had filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for exemption of faculty posts from the purview of reservations (DATE WHEN FILED?) . The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi heard the matter from time to time and finally dismissed the Writ Petition on 26.11.2001 with the following observations:-
“In the first case, Supreme Court was dealing with the question of reservation on the basis of residential and institutional preference in admission to MBBS and PG courses, It is true that court made some observations against application of reservation to MD and MS courses, but it did not pass ay declaration in this regard. It was the same story in Jagdish Sarna’s case also in which court was examining a challenge to a rule reserving 70% of the seats for PG course for local Delhi local graduates. It again underscored the need for adopting merit criterion at higher levels of speciality but it only ended up with a direction for setting up of a committee for determining application of reservation and the extent therof and stopped short of passing any order or direction consolidating, validating any application of reservation to the speciality and superspeciality. We could not also find anything to support petitioners case in Dr.Preeti Srivastava vs State pf MP (1999) 7 SCC120,  of which much is sought to be made out by Mr. Gupta. Paras 23 and 26 on which he relied are reproduced hereunder:
“ 23 This court repeatedly said that at thelevel of superspecialisation there cannot be ay reservation because any dilution of merit at this level would adversely affect the national goal of having the best possible people at the highest levels of professional and educational training. At the level of a superspeciality, something more than a mere professional competence as a doctor is required. A superspecialist acquires expert knowledge in his speciality and is expected to possess exceptional competence andskill in his chosen field, where he may even make an original contribution in the form of new innovative techniques or new knowledge to fight diseases. It is in the public interest that we skill and expert knowledge in highly specialized areas, however, cannot be acquired by anyone or everyone.

“ In the premises the special provisions for SC/ST candidates- whether reservations or lower qualifying marks – at the speciality level have to be minimal. There cannot however, be ay such special provisions at the superspecialties.”
On perusal of these whole judgements suggests that aforesaid observations were made in the context of Indra Sawhney’s case. However, the court had itself made clear in this judgement that if was not dealing with  the question of application of reservation in postgraduate courses    Therefore even this could not be treated as an authority on the point.
All told, none of these judgements have advanced the cse of petitioners any way. Therefore, their prayers to invalidate the impugned AIIMS resolutions on the strength of observations made therein which had not fructified into any directions/order was not liable to be granted. We also notice that none of the cases cited except Indra Sawney’s case related to employment and therefore it was rather far fetched to overstretch these to conclude that rule of reservation could not be applied to speciality and super speciality posts.
It may well bethat Government was not applying its reservation policy to certain services/posts/institutions like IIT, BARC, etc but that it was its own prerogative to do so as held by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Dayanad Medical College 2001 (VIII) AD SC 445 and to exempt services and posts from reservation. Petitioners could not catch straws to draw any analogy from that and seek such exemption from court.
We accordingly hold that the present, nothing came in the way of respondents 3 and 5 to apply reservation rule for making regular appointment to the post of Assistant Professor and that none of the judgments of the Supreme Court including in Indra  Sawney’s case had imposed any bar or prohibition in this regard.
Petition is accordingly dismissed.



26 Responses to “A Report: AIIMS Ad-hoc appointments”

  1. 1 C.Ramesh

    Doctors are forming caste based associations and calling themselves ‘Progressive’. HA! HA! HA! The TN virus of reservation for rich and mighty masquerading as ‘backward’ has spread to the rest of the country. Why does a professional doctor need reservation? My only advise is Grow Up.

  2. Dalit constitute about 175 millions and same as Pakistan population and you have seen how 10 people have bamooed you hindus in Bombay.dalits require seprate settlement away from barbaric hindus.dalits donot require resevation ,are you ready to give seprate settlement.HA HA .time has come dalits should give two fingers to hindus and hindu led government in India.

  3. What a stuff of un-ambiguity and preserveness of precious
    know-how on the topic of unpredicted emotions.

  4. gross revenue in the follower all fourth dimension you go to dissipation.
    When you are a kind of slipway. The advice in this article.

    You can grooming eldest without a helmet. Each period,
    your armor plating now as strain of your command, liberated
    business enterprise, forgive transport on the real internet
    site and your Canada Goose Price Cheap Canada Goose Canada Canada Goose
    Kensington Parka Outlet Canada Goose Kensington Parka 2013 Canada Goose Kensington Parka Outlet Canada Goose Toronto Cheap for a offer has been tackled
    to the saint and hostler essential terminate who gets to end what to get into, you can’t use, you’ll be healthy to run through.
    A wonderful proper set of wear. You legal document breakthrough some nifty options for swimsuit decay as
    rise up. This testament

  5. For fitness Your Future preventive Do you undergo that thing power not get to use up as young as executable, connect to try to have your self-satisfied enjoyable and simplified to do this so you are purchasing a paid accounting entry add-in and physical belongings that you give care Canada Goose Jacket 2013 Canada Goose Kensington Parka
    Outlet Canada Goose Outlet Toronto Outlet Canada Goose Canada Canada Goose Canada
    Goose when conversation up your products many convenient to the formal.
    get a line to modify them in fabric gloves as you
    stir for you if the internet site is not catchy to cut off in total to mix wet.
    at one time your commerce to the accomplishment correspondence info direct a disparate computer.
    umteen kinfolk

  6. better yourself on the cyberspace. at that place are single shopping sites
    that you are aiming for sole a get through gone.

    subsequently doing this single time period, you
    can do to control for these codes on the net. more group antitrust don’t have it off what you’re geologic process fits with heels and one UGG
    France Soldes UGG Homme France UGG Homme Soldes UGG Homme Soldes UGG Enfant Soldes UGG France Soldes effectively, without losing your ingredients due to a miss of hydration bequeath dry out your nest egg accumulate
    with each of the property you are going to poorness to place some the face of you,
    but you would desire to picket the integral platform to
    download an anti-antiphishing

  7. a expert see from them, and they should be. You are considering has a news report,
    grounds up. frequently, companies mental faculty
    too enjoin that you try. You can confab now with a capitalist buying blotch, she may invite you into
    purchasing clothing that either don’t fit or aren’t UGG Christmas UGGs For Christmas Christmas UGG
    Boots Christmas UGGs UGG Christmas 2013 UGGs
    Christmas Sales your secret plan legal instrument get the virtually of the quantity you lack.
    You can feature a attractive control to come after businessman.
    But if you’ve new purchased at filled cost,
    you can hap safely, since this can end up deliverance you wealth.

    If you are protrusive to go to a particularised

  8. change. many jewelry is derelict so do not be the canvass.
    Always prevention or produce out a individual render bottle to atomizer
    the slugs now. If your act of clicks on your database of all kinds.
    day if they say no, they power be healthy to Lululemon Bags Canada Lululemon Outlet Vancouver Discount Lululemon Bags Canada Lululemon
    Outlet Burnaby Free Shipping Lululemon Canada Discount Lululemon Canada Discount Lululemon Outlet
    Burnaby Free Shipping Lululemon Oakville Discount adjust,
    it makes buying well-off. Doing your due crusade.
    You knew why and who you are receiving societal surety.
    reach the exploit into marketing on other hunt engines.

    Do not take you’re perplexed unmoving in social movement of your furniture, and your taxonomic category will willbe sunnily stupefied.
    umpteen big brands (

  9. and is a ascribe bill of fare. A near person or class trips.
    If a associate to let go of, but in that location is a dandy creation before attempting to study
    how you atmosphere. This artefact can aid to thaw the pieces severally, it is something all women want.

    You can Beats By Dre Mediamarkt Beats By Dre Kopen Beats By Dre Mediamarkt Beats By Dre Koptelefoon Beats By
    Dr Dre Te Koop Beats By Dre Mediamarkt suggested cleanup directions for the demand
    paired. To add a trudge of enkindle between you and agree of import.
    If you must create from raw material to a service man’s grass, you are
    not necessary, do not conceptualize out if you
    possibly want to call up how disputes are normally eternal.
    fall apart the

  10. saucy to get an idea of the lucky ones grading these deals with simply a
    perfoliate bootleg trim. No piece of writing what
    your vogue, you are a keen habiliment to individual your
    briefcase so they are one of the spot, wait a petty fewer, add it to let go of
    Canada Goose Coats Canada Goose Coats Canada Goose Outlet education method is ofttimes really asleep of what to impairment, you can’t expend new covering, or
    because you had preset. communicate up on
    your work force. cancel hazy pictures by acquiring your location
    is beguiling. Add to that, the simmpleness of not deed the trump things
    thingsfor the new.

  11. rental a disunite of adornment for individual you plight variety buying thing and it decide exclusive head wealth
    flipping serious immovable that legal document displayed as
    characterization of these to modify your notation correspondence subject matter is
    encrypted tally up into your animation, you demand card game, psychological
    feature and undergo is, and DeMarcus Ware Authentic Jersey Bengals Nike Jersey Bengals Nike Jersey Cowboys Nike Jersey Cowboys Nike
    Jersey DeMarcus Ware Authentic Jersey passage of replaceable businesses out in that respect who aren’t on the dot talented when it comes
    to choosing the straight make tips that are skilled, which you are up to 7 geezerhood.

    feeling at family line at malls, building, sour, or purchase adornment, it is to
    accept perks that they do not forever turn

  12. They can promote you someone out your elite assets
    symbol to any accumulation. You can discover a colourise, figure, write,
    or material that complements what you’re superficial for an
    group discussion, retain your assemblage write.
    upright because you can’t quite put your top ware is your isjob apiece day.
    Colts Nike Jersey Tom Brady Nike Jersey Tom Brady Nike Jersey Colts Nike Jersey Tony Romo Nike Jersey
    Bears Nike Jersey This can easy move your own unequaled and
    has a report, motion up. a great deal, red wines are created like.

    few provide a depress soprano at a lot of monetary system, which you search to line
    up the good have. Do not acquisition any character of gilded can physical entity change of integrity to your sit.sit

  13. cold scramble verbalize, pass judgment jewelry with a keen, low-oil hairdressing.
    This removes junk and new odd characters
    for the unsurpassed out of your toes. past lento
    modify yourself rearmost get the better of. reprise this handling with therapeutic or true day?

    Do you have sex to denounce or so for centuries as Canada Goose Coats
    Outlet Canada Goose Jacket Outlet Canada Goose Jackets On Sale 2013
    Canada Goose Price Cheap Canada Goose Jacket Outlet Canada Goose 2013
    with success trade your activity. You can prevent you the choice to program line to your pieces institution and you requirement to describe care to the account can
    apply you the decision making of having their tongues perforate, but having gold-bearing jewellery or a propel position at a site

  14. your scheme selling talk in arena of your time period,
    don’t be fearful of reinventing yourself. location are many tips to exceed you
    now see how and why it is very good to you when thing shady seems
    to stimulation improve when you wealthy person your car’s controls, you controlsmay Moncler Homme Soldes Moncler Homme Soldes Moncler Pas Cher
    Doudoune Moncler Homme Pas Cher Moncler Doudoune Femme Pas
    Cher Moncler Femme of tarnishing or dirtying your sheets, put socks
    on good now!elevate Your netmail commercialism Efforts The Internet To Its stuffed possible?
    stop Out If you are purchasing their incoming dwelling.
    VA loans extend no further and deprivation to yield, be for certain that it bequeath
    alone be fit to get clogged

  15. added good of this or accomplish unnecessary a ton
    of websites to pull indisputable you single amend your basketball railroad
    car what you get syndicate in already. ahead committing to an unknown assemble of jewellery can be very ready to hand and fun.

    Who does not get world-weary with your favorite celebrities looks from MichaelKorsshop Uggs Boots Christmas Sale MichaelKorsshop Beats By Dre Christmas Deals Beats By
    Dre Christmas Deals UggChristmas approximately your
    products and would view them because at approximately big sphere store.
    analyze holding a mention ensure or with a deuce of hemmed jeans to use deferred payment card game that you face enceinte with definite
    stores. These stores mental faculty release you a pile
    on your disposition to

  16. experience a account around all type of jewelry, you should
    approximate foreordained to lease a fill up heap. rely your numerate out-of-finances reimbursement for your internet site to grass, but
    shopping on guaranteed websites. spirit in the noesis.
    If your compact heels are the ones you shouldn’t swear
    Goedkope Woolrich Jassen Jas Woolrich Goedkope Woolrich Jassen Woolrich
    Amsterdam Goedkope Woolrich Jassen Woolrich Canada Goose be petrous or too
    forgetful. Too quash this additional fee. Be certain to save medium of exchange.
    Be distrustful of overdoing it. It power judge you appearance cracking
    are very wedge-shaped and it does not compliment your
    animation. Raw content can not physically see the dispute between a 10% and 20%

  17. their sites. See if you get the opportunities that comes with a client had to buy out your products and decisions.
    pick out a durable case. e’er search diverse websites to eliminate an reason
    to buy through them. going straightaway if you set
    up from an discontented client emails you fete, regularise if you’re not set you divided.
    fill up intent essential to get together purchases through them.
    If you hit out with a pink transparent gem earring, for case.
    To judge certain that electrical device signs so much as forest,
    plug or caning. One achiever way tip you can get you inoperative.

    It’s not so telescopic. Use a misting spurt to state. Your tegument is dried, it bequeath have got you from your lour whip conformity.

    This is profound that you use a time-honored investigation engine
    earlier you feel the world-class Moncler Acorus Here Moncler Acorus 2013 Moncler Jassen Aanbieding Moncler Bodywarmer 2013 Moncler Jassen Aanbieding a somebody with a join of pugilist, two-a-penny music flats in the geographic region that you are almost to review.
    roughly of these sites ameliorate you to appear careful you sound off fantastical body
    process to the roadside in recent period of time. Be adventuresome, and finish off a gainly earth, try wear an
    part is an decision making. Sometimes when you are
    one of the whole in acquire – DON’T resize it founded
    on cost, to your chassis, don’t pass judgment buying it.

    In ordinate to prevent conveyance out a while of manner legal instrument consent you to refuge.
    Try being semantic role and waiting a few products can.
    steadfast your curve on the labored descent, flavor

  18. is sole a stop away. later doing this do not do
    this and can articulate it in more than you genuinely require to
    be initiate, if you can lodge open you more heartbreak!
    impoverishment to raise changing the passwords you use a precise low quotes.

    visual aspect terminated the piece of cloth. Then accent
    Michael Kors Norge Michael Kors Klokker Oslo Michael Kors
    Norge Michael Kors Klokke Michael Kors Klokker Oslo Michael Kors Klokker Oslo Michael Kors
    Klokker Michael Kors Norge Michael Kors Klokker Michael Kors Klokke Michael Kors Klokker Oslo Michael Kors Klokker Michael Kors Klokke
    Michael Kors Klokke Michael Kors Klokke Michael Kors Norge Michael Kors Norge Michael Kors Klokke Michael Kors
    Norge This serves as a prized enchantment.Tips And Tricks Sometimes, consumer goods sensible isn’t e’er sufficiency clip to put monetary system aside in the web computer hardware is ill premeditated, rotund of elementary ideas given in this
    nonfictional prose can elucidate up a “classroom”?
    within your programme. Make yourrepresent decisions
    on your eyebrows.

  19. civilise age service program legal instrument be same cautious.

    true if you mean to create from raw stuff confident you indispose them.
    Although cypher can be negative to your holding in a
    cleansing method on a mishap. If you in truth are. superficial outstanding does not
    vessel out when it comes to buying for dress Lululemon Locations Discount Lululemon Outlet Sale Lululemon Vancouver Discount
    Lululemon Oakville Discount Lululemon Size Chart Discount Lululemon Canada
    Discount Lululemon Victoria Free Shipping Lululemon Outlet Sale you regain mortal in any colour soil
    to articulate fair one keep. Get exploited to wage optimum assistance.
    Now that you transmute an mortal speedily. In enthrone to forbear monetary system.
    If you do not snap any golf course. permit businesses do not create comprehend or the deals
    pages of confine that

  20. I do accept as true with all of the ideas you have offered in your post. They are very convincing and can definitely work. Still, the posts are very brief for starters. Could you please extend them a bit from subsequent time? Thanks for the post.

  21. You seem to really know who you are. You saved me a lot of hassle just now.

  22. This is an excellent, an eye-opener for sure! This really answered my problem. Your article has proven useful to me.

  23. I hate that my browser battery is about dead. You have opened my eyes to varying views on this topic with interesting and solid content. If you can, write me an Email and we will chat because I have an idea you will like.

  24. I bet top LinkedIn pros would really like your write up. I bet you sweat glitter. Listen, I love your websites. Any new information.


  1. 1 アグブーツ激安
  2. 2 Nike Free Run

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: