SANDHYA DR JAIN Vs. SUBHASH GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the Judgment dated 5-9-95 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench in O. A. No. 213 of 1995. The appellant in each of these appeals was respondent in the original application before the Tribunal. By the impugned order the Tribunal has directed to consider the case of the applicant Dr. Subhash Garg (Respondent No. 1 in these appeals) for promotion to the post of Reader by the Departmental Promotion Committee and if found eligible, to give him his due seniority.

(2.) Dr. Subhash Garg is a lecturer in the College of Dentistry at Indore. He joined as a lecturer in Periodontia on 21-6-82. On 16-9-88, three of the Readers having been promoted as Professors on regular basis, three posts of Reader fell vacant. According to Dr. Garg, he was eligible for being considered but he was not considered notwithstanding the fact that under the Recruitment Rules, the authorities were bound to consider his case. The Principal of the college recommended the case of Dr. Garg for being considered on 6-10-89 but unfortunately, no Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held. The said Principal made a fresh request on 24-10-91 and again on 3-5-92 and finally the Departmental Promotion Committee sat on 25-9-92 but even in that meeting, case of Dr. Garg was not considered and by order dated 2-12-92, Dr. Saxena and Dr. Dhodapkar were promoted as Readers in Oral Pathology and Periodontia respectively. On 2-12-92, one Dr. Patni was promoted as Professor of Prosthetics. Being aggrieved by non-consideration of his case, Dr. Garg approached the Administrative Tribunal, which was registered as O. A. No. 18 of 1993. That application was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 28-2-94 with the directions that Dr. Garg should be considered for promotion to the post of Reader along with others who are eligible and the Government shall have the discretion to determine the guidelines for selection of the candidates, keeping in view the specific teaching requirement in the College of Dentistry. This order of the Tribunal was assailed by Dr. Garg by filing Special Leave Petition No. 15892 of 1994 in this Court, which however was dismissed on 26-9-94. The Departmental Promotion Committee again sat in May, 1994 and considered and selected Dr. Desh Raj Jain, appellant in one of the appeals as Reader in Prosthetics and the case of Dr. Garg was not considered. On 29-11-94, Dr. Garg was informed that the matter of holding a Departmental Promotion Committee to consider his case is being considered by the Government. Dr. Garg filed a representation on 16-1-95. As the said representation was not disposed of, he approached the Administrative Tribunal by filing an application under Section 9 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which was registered as O. A. No. 213 of 1995. The said application having been disposed of by the impugned order with the directions as already stated, the present appeals have been preferred. The State as well as two other private respondents before the Tribunal have preferred these appeals.

(3.) The case of the respondent Dr. Garg, before the Tribunal was that the recruitment and other conditions of service of the doctors in the College of Dentistry are governed by Madhya Pradesh Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Recruitment Rules"). Under the Rules as per Schedule I, the college has one post of Principal, four posts of Professor, five posts of Reader and six posts of Lecturer. Though, there are five posts of Readers and Column 2 of Schedule IV indicates how promotion would be given to the post of Reader in four different subjects, there is no indication how the fifth post has to be manned. According to Dr. Garg, the said fifth post was usually being filled up by the senior-most lecturer available and, therefore, though he was eligible for being considered on the basis of his seniority as lecturer, he was not considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The further stand of Dr. Garg was that under the Rules, the Departmental Promotion Committee was required to meet at intervals ordinarily not exceeding one year but in the present case, there was no meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee from 1988 till 1992 notwithstanding the availability of a vacancy in the post of Reader and this was purposely done only with the object of accommodating Dr. (Mrs.) Sandhya Jain and Dr. Desh Raj Jain who had not been eligible for being considered for the post of Reader till 1992 and in the process, the Constitutional Right of Dr. Garg for being considered was infringed. Dr. Garg, further asserted that notwithstanding the directions of the Tribunal in O. A. No. 18/93, the Departmental Promotion Committee did not consider his case and, therefore, appropriate directions should be given.