A.K. GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts of this case, which was filed in the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court as C.W.P. No. 1188 of 2008 and on transfer to this Tribunal has been registered as T.A. No. 43 -CH of 2008, are that the Respondent Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research ('PGIMER' for short), Chandigarh vide Advertisement dated 18.5.1995 (Annexure A -l), had advertised various posts, including four posts of Professor (Medical) -one each for the Departments of Anatomy, Cardiology, Pediatrics (Neonatology), and the fourth one, which is in issue in the present case, that of Professor of Hospital Administration -cum -Medical Superintendent. The qualifications and experience prescribed under Rule 7(5), read with Regulation 32 of the PGIMER Regulations and as approved by the Governing Body of the Respondent Institute, for the post of Professor in Hospital Administration -cum -Medical Superintendent, were as under:

(2.) THE pleaded case of the Petitioner is that he was having the requisite qualifications and was within the age limit prescribed for the post of Professor of Hospital Administration -cum -Medical Superintendent, but, was short of experience by 5 years at that point of time as he possessed only 9 years' experience against the prescribed experience of 14 years. The applicant has pleaded that it was on the persuasion of the then Director of the Respondent Institute that he had applied for the said post. He went through the selection process, and was duly selected. The recommendations of the Selection Committee were also accepted and approved by the Governing Body of the Respondent Institute vide order dated 15.11.1995. Thus, he has all justifiable reasons to believe that the experience clause was relaxed in his case as per the provisions contained in the detailed brochure. Consequently, he was appointed as Medical Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs. 5900 -200 -7300 but was given the rank of Additional Professor, instead of Professor of Hospital Administration vide appointment order dated 1.12.1995 (Annexure P -2).

(3.) THE Petitioner has further pleaded that he made numerous representations to designate him as Professor of Hospital Administration instead of Additional Professor while continuing as Medical Superintendent of the Respondent Institute, as per Annexure P -3 dated 25.9.1999, Annexure P -4 dated 17.1.2001, Annexure P -6 dated 20.4.2001, Annexure P -7 dated 9.1.2002, Annexure P -8 dated 26.5.2003, but, the authorities felt reluctant to re -designate him as a Professor. Nothing was done in pursuance to the representations made by him and his claim was rejected vide Annexure P -5 dated 10.4.2001.