DR. KULDIP SINGH, READER, DEPTT. OF SURGERY DAYANAND MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, LUDHIANA Vs. DAYANAND MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment, I shall be disposing of two Civil Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 17432 and 14485 of 2000 as the questions of facts and law involved therein are identical in nature. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 17432 of 2000.

(2.) The petitioner has filed a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter dated October 16, 2000 (Annexure P -14) issued by the Principal, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana (Respondent No.2) whereby he states that he is being victimized on his approaching this Hon'ble Court against the order dated August 22,2000 (Annexure P -3) issued by respondent No.2 vide which he was compulsorily retired from service. Further, he has prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allocate teaching/professional work to him being a qualified Surgeon. He has further prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to permit him to do private practice as it has been permitted to his other colleagues.

(3.) The petitioner has averred that Dayanand Medical College and Hospital Ludhiana is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860. This society was formed to establish and manage the Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, it is, thus, performing public duties. The society has been established for the promotion of medical science and medical education to provide medical aid to needy persons. The respondent -Medical College and Hospital is aiding the function of the State Government in providing medical education. The respondent Medical college was affiliated to the Panjab University, Chandigarh and is now affiliated to the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences. Faridkot. The regulations relating to the conditions of service of the employees of affiliated colleges framed by the Panjab University are applicable to the colleges. The Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service of Employees) Act. 1974 is also applicable to the respondents. In view of this and also in the light of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Ravneet Kaur's case , (1997 2 116 PLR 623 as also in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Unni Krishnan's case and Anadi Mukta's case this writ petition is maintainable. The petitioner has further averred that he was working as Reader in the Department of Surgery in the respondent College and Hospital. By an order dated August 22, 2000, he was ordered to be compulsorily retired. He filed Civil writ Petition No. 11518 of 2000 challenging the said order. The operation of the order was stayed by this Court on August 30, 2000. On October 4, 2000 the Institution, realising the illegality in the order conceded the case and withdrew the order. Sh. Prem Nath Gupta, Secretary, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital Managing Society, Ludhiana (respondent No.3), who is incharge of the Institution took this as a personal affront. Right from August 30, 2000 onwards, no work was assigned to the petitioner. On October 16, 2000, the petitioner was ordered to be present in the Hospital from 8.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. and also the facility of private practice was withdrawn. This order was issued only to the petitioner and Dr. Ajit Singh Khurana, (petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 14485 of 2000), who was also similarly prematurely retired and whose order was also withdrawn and has also not been assigned any work. The petitioner aggrieved against this action of the respondents in not assigning him any duty and forcing him to stay in the Hospital from 8.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. and also withdrawing the facility of private practice, has approached this Court by way of this writ petition. The petitioner has published various research papers in the National/International Journals and has been a Chief Supervisor or Co -Supervisor of 25 students, who were doing their post Graduation thesis. The petitioner has also attended approximately 30 surgical conferences and teaching programmes in general as well as in Laparoscropic Surgery. The petitioner was invited by various institutes to deliver lectures as a lecturer. The details of delivering the lectures have further been elaborated in para No.7 of the petition. The petitioner was awarded the State Award for contribution in Surgical Field by the Chief Minister, Punjab in the year 1997. This showed that the petitioner was a qualified teacher. The petitioner was appointed as Registrar, which is a post equivalent to the post of Senior Resident in the Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. The petitioner worked there from 1982 till 1983. Thereafter he was selected as a Senior Resident in the P.G.I, in the Department of Surgery and he worked there from 1983 till 1987. In the year 1987 the respondent -College and Hospital advertised the post of Lecturer and the petitioner who was fully qualified applied for that post and was ultimately selected as a Lecturer. A photostat copy of the appointment order dated February 21, 1987 of the petitioner is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P -1. The main reason for the petitioner to leave the P.G.I, and get assigned with the Dayanand Medical College and Hospital was that the doctors, while working there had the facility of doing private practice. In March 1987, when the petitioner joined the Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, his salary was Rs.2,500/ -. This low salary was because of the fact that he was permitted to do private practice. In the PGI with similar status and work, he would have got a salary of Rs. 10,000/ - but no private practice would have been permitted. On September 15,1992, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Reader in the Department of Surgery. A copy of the order dated September 15, 1992 is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P -2. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice on May 17, 1998 as to why the facility of private practice given to the petitioner should not be withdrawn. Why his service be not terminated and why opportunity of promotion to the next higher post be not stopped. Reply was given to the show cause notice on May 23, 1998. Thereafter, nothing was heard from the respondents, it was only on August 25, 2000 that the petitioner read in a local newspaper that he and Dr. Ajit Singh Khurami have been prematurely retired by the governing body in their meeting held on August 22, 2000. A copy of the order dated August 22, 2000 prematurely retiring him from service is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P -3. The petitioner filed civil writ petition no. 11518 of 2000 in which the operation of order dated August 22, 2000 was stayed. The respondents withdrew that writ petition after withdrawing the impugned order of retirement. A copy of the order dated October 4, 2000 passed by a Division Bench of this Court is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P -4. After assigning the work to the petitioner, the work was withdrawn from him. This fact can be ascertained from a duty chart of the consultants in the Department of Surgery for the month of August, 2000 which was circulated on July 31,2000, a copy of which is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P -5. A perusal of the duty chart (Annexure P -5) shows that after August 22, 2000 the name of the petitioner was totally removed from the Surgery Department. A photostat copy of the order dated August 31, 2000 giving the schedule w.e.f. August 23, 2000 is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P -6. In the Medical College also the position of the petitioner was the same. Prior to August 22, 2000, the petitioner had been teaching the students of both Under Graduate as also Post Graduate Courses. After the stay order was passed by this Court in the previous writ petition filed by the petitioner, the teaching work of the petitioner was withdrawn. This was done under oral orders of respondent No.3. Representation were given by the petitioner to assign him the work in the Hospital as the operation of the order dated August 22, 2000 was stayed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated August 30, 2000. A copy of the representation dated September 1, 2000 is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P -8. On September 4, 2000 the petitioner received a letter that he was allowed to join the Institution and whatever duty is assigned to him, he would do the same, but in fact, no duty was assigned to the petitioner. The petitioner then sent representations to the respondents on September 8, 2000 and September 21, 2000 (Annexures P -10 and P -10A) mentioning therein that work should be assigned to him. Thereafter, representations dated October 11, 2000 (Annexure P -11) and October 16, 2000 (Annexure P -12) were sent by the petitioner to the respondents repeating the same request for assigning work to him, but the authorities did not reply to the same. A letter was sent to the petitioner on October 16, 2000 though at that time the petitioner was ill and he was asked to remain in the Institution from 8.00 A.M. to 5. P.M. (with lunch break from 1.00 P.M. to 2.00 P.M.) from Monday to Friday and from 8.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. on Saturday. Further, private practice permitted to the petitioner was withdrawn. A copy of the order dated October 16, 2000 is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P -14. The Punjab University Syndicate circulated a letter dated May 10, 1993 mentioning therein that all the teachers working in the Medical Colleges should be granted U.G.C. pay scales, a copy of which is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P -16. The respondents in spite of this letter did not sanctioned the U.G.C. grade to the petitioner and Dr. Ajit Singh Khurana.