DR. VIRENDRA SINGH Vs. POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH AND DIRECTOR, POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present O.A., the applicant, who is presently working as Professor in the department of Hepatology at Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (hereinafter referred to as PGI) Chandigarh, has impugned the order dated 08/09.08.1997 whereby his request for promotion to the post of Associate Professor had been rejected. He has also sought quashing of orders dated 24.04.2006 and 12.05.2012 whereby his representations for promotion from due date were rejected. He has sought issuance of a direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of Associate Professor from 01.07.1997, and thereafter to revise his seniority and grant him consequential benefits.

(2.) THE facts which led to the filing of the present O.A. are that initially the applicant joined the PGIMER, Chandigarh as an Assistant Professor, on regular basis, in the year 1992. He became eligible for next promotion in the hierarchy w.e.f. 01.07.1997. His case was considered by the Selection Committee on 8/9.08.1997. He was found not suitable and therefore his case for promotion was rejected. Subsequently, he was considered and promoted as Associate Professor on 01.07.1999 and then as Additional Professor on 01.07.2003 and ultimately as Professor on 01.07.2008.

(3.) PURSUANT to notice, the respondents resisted the claim of the applicant by filing a detailed written statement wherein they have stated that the applicant is seeking review of the decision granting him promotion as Associate Professor, which event had taken place as far back as on 01.07.1999, by filing the present O.A. in the year 2012, which his hugely barred by time. It is submitted that the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Associate Professor w.e.f. 01.07.1997 was considered under the APS by the Selection Committee in the year 1997 but he was found not eligible as per the guidelines for promotion at that time and, therefore, he could not be promoted. Subsequently, his case was considered in the year 1999 and on being found fit, he was promoted. His request for review of his promotion from back date has already been examined and rejected by the Competent Authority long time back. An order to this effect was conveyed to him on 25.04.2006. Even that order, adverse to his interest, has not been challenged by the applicant before any Court of Law. It is further submitted that the as far as review DPC, as per the agenda of 117th meeting of the Governing Body of PGI, is concerned, the same does not relate to the applicant because a concession had been given to only those doctors who were considered and were not found eligible for promotion in subsequent meetings and, on their request, a review committee was constituted only for that category of doctors. It is not that those who have already been granted promotion, their cases also to be reviewed. An averment to this effect has been made in para 4(h) to (k) of the written statement which is reproduced hereunder: -