PARAS M PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner was appointed as Tutor on adhoc basis. Thereafter, she was also appointed on regular basis after recommendation of the GPSC as per the order dated 07.08.2001. Thereafter, it appears that as the petitioner was qualified, on temporary and adhoc basis the petitioner was posted on the post of Assistant Professor in Anatomy for a period of six months or till the post is filled-up on regular basis or till further orders, whichever was earlier. The petitioner continued over the post. However, on 17.02.2003/28.02.2003, respondent No. 4 came to be promoted to the post of Assistant Professor, Anatomy on regular basis upon the recommendation by the DPC and therefore, as the petitioner was working on adhoc basis till the regularly selected candidate was available, the petitioner came to be reverted vide order dated 28.02.2003 with a view to accommodate respondent No. 4 who was regularly selected. It appears that the petitioner made representation also against the selection of respondent No. 4 and she also claimed that she should have been considered for promotion by DPC. However, as no actions were taken in this regard, the petitioner has approached to this Court by preferring this petition.

(2.) Two important aspects, which has occurred pending the petition; one is that, on 05.02.2004, the State Government has passed the order whereby the promotion given to respondent No. 4 is cancelled on the ground that respondent No. 4 did not possess the requisite qualification of MS Anatomy on the date when DPC recommended for his promotion on 09.09.2002 since respondent No. 4 was declared passed in the said requisite examination on 27.01.2003 and therefore, as the respondent No. 4 was not qualified for promotion, the promotion was cancelled. The another aspect is that on 27.01.2006, the petitioner is regularly promoted to the post of Assistant Professor(Class-I) and a copy of the order dated 27.01.2006 together with the order dated 05.02.2004 for cancelling the promotion of respondent No. 4, both are produced by Mr. Oza, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of hearing. Therefore, when the matter is finally heard, the promotion given to respondent No.4 stood cancelled in the year 2004 and the petitioner is now promoted in January 2006 on regular basis. It may incidentally be mentioned that respondent No. 4 is also promoted as Assistant Professor (Class-I) together with the petitioner vide order dated 27.01.2006 and other ten Doctors are also promoted simultaneously.

(3.) Mr. Oza, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the contention that the reversion of the petitioner in the year 2003 was on account of the promotion order in favour of respondent No. 4 which ultimately is found as not proper and consequently, the promotion is cancelled. Therefore, he submitted that the action of the respondent authority to revert the petitioner from the post of Assistant Professor to the post of Tutor would be rendered illegal. He therefore submitted that the petitioner would be entitled for the consequential benefits as if she continued over the post of Assistant Professor.