RAJANI KANTA DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction from this court to the respondents to issue posting order in his post of Registrar in any of the Medical Colleges of Assam after regularising his entire period of prosecuting post graduate degree course as extraordinary leave without any break of service.

(2.) Petitioner's case is that he belongs to SC community and after passing MBBS degree joined as Demonstrator in the Deptt. of Anatomy under Regulation 3(f) and subsequently in the same year he was appointed and served on regular basis in an existing regular vacancy reserved for SC candidate as Registrar, ENT, Silchar Medical College with effect from 4.9.92. While working as such petitioner got selected for admission in 2 years PG course in MS (Otorhinolaryngology) for the session 1993- 95 to be commenced from 1.6.93 and accordingly petitioner filed application to respondent No.2 for permission on 22.3.93 which was not attended to. Thereafter petitioner filed application on 22.5.93 to respondent No.2 for extraordinary leave, through proper channel, that is the Principal, Silchar Medical College and the same was forwarded to Director of Medical Education (Annexures- Bl and B2) and petitioner's allegation is that this time also no reply was given. However, as the PG Course (MS) was to commence from 1.6.93 petitioner joined the same after handing over the charge to the Head of the ENT Deptt, anticipating formal order from the concerned authority. But petitioner received the impugned notification dated 28.9.93 (Annexure-C) after four months of joining the PG Course, notifying the release of the petitioner for PG studies without his claim over the post in future. Immediately petitioner filed representations (Annexure-D, E and F) which were not disposed of and only by the communication dated 8.8.95 (Annexure-H) respondent No.4 informed the petitioner that Govt rejected the petitioner's prayer for regularisation of leave and issue of posting order as per notification (Annexure- C). Petitioner's claim is that though the petitioner has not completed 3 years, he is entitled to leave as some similarly situated doctors were granted extraordinary leave.

(3.) Respondent No.3 has filed affidavit in opposition denying the claim of the petitioner and averred that petitioner is not entitled to extraordinary leave as he has not completed 3 years of regular service; that special recommendation can be granted only to those for study on 'non clinical' subjects; that ENT being a clinical subject no recommendation was given to the petitioner. It is further averred that the doctors who have been named in the writ petition were granted special leave as they are from "non clinical" subjects and that petitioner was removed from service as per rule.