DR. O.P. MAHAJAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner after starting his career as Medical Officer in the State of Punjab on May, 1968, rose to the rank of Professor on regular basis w.e.f. Sept. 16, 1982, after getting promotions on various ranks. According to the petitioner, he is the senior-most Professor working in the Medical Colleges in the State of Punjab and as per the statutory rules, the post of a Principal in a Medical College is to be filled from amonst the Professors working in the Medical Colleges in the State of Punjab. It is further the case that he has been holding the post of Vice Principal of various Institutions and since Aug., 1999, he was acting as a Principal of Government Medical College, Amritsar. The Chandigarh Administration had started a Medical College at Chandigarh in the year 1991. The petitioner was sent on deputation to the Chandigarh Administration in the Medical College, Chandigarh. One Dr. J.S. Chopra (respondent No. 4) who was working in the P.G.I. was appointed as Principal of the Government Medical College, Chandigarh. It is the case of the petitioner that said Dr. Chopra somehow got biased against him and it was because of mala fide intention that he gave two adverse reports to him for the years 1992-93 and 1993-94. The petitioner was repatriated to the parent Department in July, 1994, and he joined Government Medical College, Amritsar. The Annual Confidential Report for the year 1992-93, in which adverse remarks were recorded by Dr. Chopra was conveyed to the petitioner on May 15, 1994. The ACR for the year 1993-94 was conveyed to the petitioner on April 21, 1995. The A.C.Rs. for the years 1992-93 and 1993-94 have been appended as Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively with the writ petition. It may be observed here that the representations against the adverse remarks for the years 1992-93 and 1993-94 were also rejected by the State of Punjab vide orders dated July 24, 1998, copy Annexure P-4, and May 27, 1998, copy Annexure P-3, respectively.

(2.) The official respondents constituted a Departmental Selection Committee for considering the cases of eligible Professors for the post of Principal on Oct. 29, 1999. As per the allegation made in the petition, the petitioner was ignored for promotion because of the adverse remarks for the years 1992-93 and 1993-94. The names of respondents No. 2 and 3 were recommended.

(3.) This writ petition has been filed challenging, inter alia, non-promotion of the petitioner on the basis of adverse remarks for the years 1992-93 and 1993-94 as also the promotion order of respondent No. 2 dated Dec. 8, 1999, copy Annexure P-12. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the adverse remarks for the years 1992-93 and 1993-94.