KUSUM BABURAO DHEMRE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that she was not given the legitimate promotions to her in her service in the Department of Public Health and Medical Education of the State Government.

(2.) The facts are that the petitioner who is a Scheduled Caste Candidate passed 3 1/2 year Diploma Course in General Nursing and Midwifery in 1967. She also passed an additional Diploma Course in Auxiliary Nursing and Midwifery in 1960. She was registered with the Nursing Council of the State of Maharashtra, originally under the provisions of the C.P & Berar Nurses Registration Act on 5-1-1967, and thereafter under the Maharashtra Nursing Council Act. She was then appointed as a Staff-Nurse in the pay-scale of Rs. 125-5-145 in the District Hospital, Akola, by the order dated 4-3-1967. During her service, she was deputed for B.Sc. (Post-Basic) Degree Course in Nursing on 26-6-1970. She obtained the said degree in 1973. After obtaining the said degree, she was appointed by transfer as Sister-Tutor with effect from 21-11-1973 in the pay-scale of Rs. 250-10-15-370/-. This appointment as Sister-Tutor was in the General Hospital, Amravati. On 15-1-1976 she was appointed in the post of Matron Grade IV (Non Gazetted) in the General Hospital, Osmanabad by transfer from her post of Sister-Tutor in the General Hospital, Amravati. Although the pay scale of Matron Grade IV (Non Gazetted) is not mentioned in the aforesaid order of appointment by transfer dated 15-1-1976, it is not in dispute that the pay scale of the post of Matron Grade IV (Non-Gazetted) and the pay-scale of the post of Sister-Tutor is the same. After this appointment to the post of Matron Grade IV (Non-Gazetted) the petitioner was promoted in the post of Matron Grade III (Gazetted) on 2-9-1982 for which she was selected by M.P.S.C. There is no further promotion given to the petitioner in the post of Matron Grade II (Gazetted) and thereafter in the post of Matron Grade I (Gazetted), which is the grievance made by the petitioner in the instant writ petitioner. 2. At this stage, we may refer to the service history of the respondent No. 3 who is also a Scheduled Caste candidate. The respondent No. 3 passed the B.Sc. Degree Examination on in Nursing in April 1970 and the Degree was conferred upon her on 18-8-1988. According to the respondent No. 3, she had an experience of Staff-Nurse in the private hospital for one year thereafter. She was then appointed as a Sister-Tutor in the District Hospital at Akola on 7-12-1971. On 26-4-1976 she was appointed as Matron Grade IV (Non Gazetted). She was then promoted in the post of Matron Grade III (Non-Gazetted) on 9-3-1979. It is clear that the promotion of the respondent No. 3 in the post of Matron Grade III (Gazetted) is prior to the promotion of the petitioner in the said post. After her promotion to the post of Matron Grade III (Gazetted), the respondent No. 3 was promoted to the post of Matron Grade II (Gazetted) on 13-9-1984. 2-A. It is this promotion of the respondent No. 3 in the post of Matron Grade II (Gazetted) which is challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. The Petitioner has also challenged her promotion in the post of Matron Grade III (Gazetted) in the sense that since the petitioner was senior to her in the post of Matron Grade IV (Non Gazetted). She ought to have been appointed in the said post prior to her. The petitioner has, therefore, claimed a deemed date of promotion over the respondent No. 3 in the post of Matron Grade III (Gazetted). During the tendency of the petition, the respondent No. 3 has been further promoted to the post of Matron Grade I by the order dated 31-1-1986 which order is also impugned by the petitioner by amending her writ petition. According to the petitioner, she made representations to the State Government in this matter but they are without any effect. Hence, she is required to move this Court for necessary relief.

(3.) The State Government has filed its return as well as the respondent No. 3. The main submission on their behalf in their return is that the post of Sister-Tutor was equivalent to the posts of Matron Grade IV (Non-Gazetted) as both the posts carried the same pay-scale and , therefore, the respondent No. 3 was granted the seniority in her post of Sister-Tutor while considering her claim for promotion in the post of Matron Grade III (Gazetted). It is for this reason, according to the respondent State, that the respondent No. 3 was held as senior to the petitioner although in the post of Matron Grade IV (Non-Gazetted) the petitioner was appointed earlier to the respondent No. 3. The main question, therefore, that falls for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether the post of Sister-Tutor is equivalent to the post of Matron Grade IV (Non-Gazetted). In our view while considering the question of equivalence, mere equivalence in pay is not enough to determine whether both the posts in question are equivalent or not. It is necessary to consider for determining the equivalence of the posts the nature of the posts, their Recruitment Rules, the nature of the duties attached to the posts and all other relevant factors. The Recruitment Rules for the non-gazetted posts of Matron i.e. Matron Grade IV, as well as the Recruitment Rules for the post of Sister-Tutor are placed on record before us. The said Rules are not in dispute. Similarly, the duties of Matron Grade IV (Non-Gazetted), the duties of Sister-Tutor/Master-Tutor and the duties of Staff Nurse are also placed on record. These duties are placed on record. These duties are contained in the official publication of the State Government Hospital Administration Manual, Volume II, vide Appendix 71, page 284-294.