S R PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioner has challenged the order No. MCS/Hc/161-165 of 1982 passed by the Dean of the Government Medical College Surat on the basis of the Government Resolution No. MCG-1078-5417/82/V dated 28/07/1982 whereby the services of the petitioner as probationary Assistant Professor of Pharmacology Government Medical College Surat were terminated with immediate effect. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order (Annexure J) and the Resolution (Annexure I) on the ground that the termination order is not an order of termination simpliciter but it is as and by way of punishment and also on the ground teat although he is well and sufficiently qualified for the job the authorities concerned have erroneously decided against him that he did not possess the requisite qualification at the time when he was taken in service as Assistant Professor of Pharmacology.

(2.) Mr. B. P. Tanna the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the respondents are not correct in saying that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification as it was set out in the advertisement for the post because the advertisement had stated that the candidate must have the degree of M.Sc. in Pharmacology with a course of 3 1/2 years duration because the present petitioner had done a course with a course of 3 1/2 years duration duration the present petitioner had done a course which at the time was a two years course but there was a compulsory prerequisite orientation course of 11 years covering the medical subjects which are now included in the 32 years course. According to Mr. Tanna the course in which he studied for M. Sc. Pharmacology covered all the subjects which are now covered by 3 1/2 years course with the only difference that the 1 1/2years course of study of medical subjects was not regarded as a part of the two years course for M.Sc. He has also submitted that when he applied for the post he had set out very clearly that he had studied the 12 years course in the medical subjects preparatory to the 2 years M.Sc. Pharmacology course and that having passed 1 1/2 Years qualifying course he was allowed to study for and pass the two years M.Sc. Course which taken to gether is the exact equivalent with the present 32 years course in M.Sc. Pharmacology. According to him the Public Service Commission must have taken into account that the entire course covered by the present petitioner was either identical or similar to the present 31 years course and on that basis the petitioner was taken into employment. Hence according to him it is not open to the respondents now to say that the petitioner did not have sufficient or requisite qualification of M.Sc. Pharmacology of 31 years course.

(3.) Mr. M. A. Panchal the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the earlier two years course for M. Sc. Pharmacology was quite different from the present 3 1/2 years course inasmuch as the preparatory 1 1/2 years course was not a part of the M.Sc. Examination course. Hence according to him it cannot be said that the petitioner did possess the requisite qualification as set out in the advertisement. Mr. Panchal has argued that it is not open to this court or to any other authority to decide at this stage the question of equivalence between the former two years M.Sc. Pharmacology course and the present 3 1/2 years M. Sc. Pharmacology course. On this point Mr. Panchal is right that this court would not go into the question of equivalence but it is not at all necessary that to go into that question at this stage. It is sufficient for the purpose of deciding the present petition that the Public service Commission had at the time of taking the petitioner in the employment regarded the qualification as sufficient and had appointed the petitioner on that basis. It is not open to the regpondents now to find fault with the qualification of the petitioner which they had accepted earlier nor is it proper for them to say that the petitioner had either misled them or they were themselves misled. In either case the original appointment could not be called in question now on the ground of sufficiency of qualification.