RAMESH CHANDRA SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that is involved in one of these two appeals by special leave, namely, Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1981, which is the only effective appeal, relates to the seniority between the appellant Dr Ramesh Chandra Sinha and the respondent No. 4 Dr. P. K. Verma. The appellant has also challenged the seniority of Dr. S. L Mandal, respondent No. 3 in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1981, and Dr. J. Alam, respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1981. But, Mr. Tapas Roy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in both these appeals, expressly given up the challenge in respect of these two persons. We are, accordingly, concerned with the question of seniority between the appellant and Dr. P. K. Verma in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1981 and, as the appellant does not press the case against Dr. J. Alam, the Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1981 is infructuous and liable to be dismissed.

(2.) Both the appellant and Dr. Verma are Plastic Surgeons. By an order dated September 29, 1978, the State Government appointed the appellant, Dr. S. L Mandal and Dr. P. K. Verma, the Associate Professors of Plastic Surgery in the Patna Medical College. In the said order, the name of the appellant was placed below the names of Dr. Mandal and Dr. Verma, which meant that the appellant was junior to them. The appellant, as stated already, has given up his case against Dr. Mandal. The appellant, however, claims that he is senior to Dr. Verma and, accordingly, his name should have been placed above him in the said order of appointment. Being aggrieved by the said order making the appellant junior to Dr. Verma, the appellant moved the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution claiming seniority over Dr. Verma.

(3.) It is not disputed before us that the question of seniority between the appellant land the respondent No. 4 will be resolved on the basis of the length of teaching experience in Plastic Surgery. The High Court came to the finding that the appellant had teaching experience in Plastic Surgery for a period of 3 years 8 months 3 days, while the respondent No. 4 Dr. Verma had such experience for 4 years 7 months 27 days. In that view of the matter, the High Court held that the respondent No. 4 was senior to the appellant and dismissed the writ petition. Hence the Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1981.