In a fresh twist to the ongoing rift between the Health Minister Anbamuni Ramadoss and All India Institute of Medical Sciences Director P Venugopal, the institute has moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay of the March 29 Delhi High Court ruling that there was no upper age limit for directors and prior approval of government was necessary for removing him.

The special leave petition filed by the AIIMS governing body member Naresh Dayal, secretary, Ministry of Health, through counsel Mukul Gupta on Thursday submitted that the high court has committed grave errors of law by passing the impugned judgment.

AIIMS' decision to challenge the judgment comes as a surprise as the high court's judgment now under challenge was in fact, seen as a setback to Venugopal as it gave the green signal to the governing body of the institute to proceed against him for his alleged acts of commissions and omissions.

The high court had also ruled that the director of the institute cannot hold the dual post of head of the Department of Cardio Thoriasic Surgery and rejected his plea that the minister cannot be appointed as president of the AIIMS.

However, the SLP filed by AIIMS assailed the judgement on the ground that the High Court had committed a grave error by declaring that there was no upper age limit for the director and directing that the principles of natural justice should be observed by issuing prior notice to him before his removal.

The SLP also questioned the direction, which stipulated that the termination order, if any, shall be kept in abeyance for a fortnight.

According to the Institute, the High Court's directions was a gross violation of Regulation 30 of the AIIMS Act, which clearly stipulated that the upper age limit in the case of the teaching faculty was 62 years and hence argued that Venugopal cannot continue beyond the age of superannuation.

The SLP claimed that in various earlier judgments including the N V Putta Bhatta Vs State of Mysore case the apex court had held that the principles of natural justice was not applicable in the case of government servants and also that the scope of judicial review in such matters was limited.