ROHTAK: The Punjab and Haryana high court has stayed the operation of orders pertaining to the re-employment of Dr Kundan Mittal, medical superintendent of PGIMS Rohtak, following a petition filed by Dr Anil Pannikker challenging the decision on grounds including alleged violation of the statutory age bar and consideration of extraneous factors.The matter, CWP-30231-2026, Dr Anil Pannikker vs State of Haryana and Others, came up before the high court on September 16, 2026.According to the submissions made by the petitioner before the court, Dr Mittal attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on June 30, 2026. He was subsequently re-employed for a further period of three years.The petitioner has submitted that Dr Mittal had made an individual representation seeking re-employment on May 14, 2026, which was followed by a political recommendation dated May 15, 2026.
Petitioner Flags Former Minister’s Recommendation
A significant document relied upon by the petitioner is a recommendation addressed to the chief minister by former Haryana cooperation minister Manish Kumar Grover.In the letter, Grover described Dr Mittal as an exceptionally efficient administrator and a highly skilled doctor, while also referring to his assistance to party workers and grassroots-level volunteers.The recommendation also stated that Dr Mittal’s continued presence was important for safeguarding and furthering the interests of the party within the university and the region.The petitioner has argued that such political or other extraneous considerations cannot constitute a relevant basis for the appointment or re-employment to a statutory post.However, the high court has not yet returned any final finding on these submissions.Documents pertaining to the matter, including the high court order and the recommendation letter addressed by former minister Manish Kumar Grover to the chief minister, are available with TOI.The report is based on these documents.Dr Pannikker has also challenged Dr Mittal’s re-employment by relying on the University Statutes.As recorded in the high court order, the petitioner has relied upon Rule 2(d) of the University Statutes, which provides that no person above the age of 58 years can be appointed as medical superintendent.The petitioner has alleged that despite this statutory provision, the University’s Executive Council, through its resolution dated August 6, 2026, approved Dr Mittal’s re-employment.Another key contention raised by the petitioner is that the Executive Council lacked the authority to relax the statutory age limit. On this basis, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the approval granted for Dr Mittal’s re-employment.Dr Kundan Mittal was contacted to seek his response to the proceedings before the high court and the issues raised in the petition.Responding to the matter, Dr Mittal said, “Such letters keep coming. There is no proper basis or relevance to it.”He further said, “I am working in my office.”Dr Mittal’s response represents his position on the matter, while the allegations and legal contentions raised by the petitioner remain pending adjudication before the court.The vice-chancellor of the Health University, Dr HK Agrawal, was also contacted several times for his response to the matter.Calls were made to him and messages were sent on WhatsApp seeking his comments. However, Dr Agrawal neither answered the calls nor responded to the WhatsApp messages.During the hearing, Haryana deputy advocate general Naveen Singh Panwar appeared for the state and accepted notice. Advocate Nilesh Bhardwaj appeared for the respondent-university and also accepted notice.The respondents sought a short adjournment to obtain complete instructions in the matter.The high court has fixed March 4, 2027 as the next date of hearing.It directed that any reply be filed in the Registry at least one week before the next hearing, with an advance copy supplied to counsel for the petitioner.In its interim order, the high court directed that the operation of the impugned order dated August 3, 2026, and the subsequent Executive Council resolution dated August 6, 2026, shall remain stayed.The court, however, clarified that the respondent-university would remain at liberty to appoint a medical superintendent in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and rules.The high court’s present order is interim in nature, and the court has not yet finally adjudicated upon the legality of Dr Mittal’s re-employment.The objections concerning the political recommendation, the 58-year statutory age limit and the authority of the Executive Council have been raised by the petitioner and remain subject to further proceedings and adjudication.Dr Mittal, for his part, has maintained that such letters keep coming, that the letter in question has no proper basis or relevance, and that he is continuing to work from his office.
