DR. ARCHANA SUD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the department of Internal Medicine in the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, against a leave vacancy on 31.3.1994. She continued to work in that capacity till July 1995 after securing several extensions. While she was in service, the P.G.I. issued an advertisement, Annexure P-3, dated 2.9.1994, calling for applications for regular appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Internal Medicine. The appellant applied for the said post and after selection was put at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list. One Dr. Amita Aggarwal, who was selected for appointment, was called upon to join her duties by 25.5.1995. This date was extended time and again on the request of Dr. Amita Aggarwal by the Director of the P.G.I. with the final extension being given upto 15.7.1995. Dr. Amita Aggarwal, however, did not join her duties, on which a letter of appointment, Annexure P-6, was issued to the appellant on 21.7.1995 and she joined her post the very next day. It appears that a new Assessment Promotion Scheme was approved by the governing body of the PGI vide Annexure P-8 on 25.4.1992 and rectified by the Institute Body on 14.8.1992. As per Clause 3 of this Scheme, an Assistant Professor/Associate Professor, who had put in four years experience in the regular service of the P.G.I., was eligible for promotion under the said scheme. The cut off date for purpose of eligibility was also fixed in the scheme as being 30th June of that particular year. Pursuant to the aforesaid scheme, the PGI issued a circular dated 28.9.2000 calling options for consideration for promotion. The appellant's case was, however, not considered on the plea that she did not have four years regular service as on 30.6.1999 as she had been appointed on 22.7.1995, leading to a shortfall of about 22 days. The appellant thereafter moved a representation dated 27.4.1999, Annexure P-9, to the Director of the PGI, which was rejected vide order, Annexure P-10, dated 6.7.1999 on the ground that she did not fulfill the eligibility condition of four years of regular service. The order, Annexure P-10, had been impugned in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide judgment dated 30.1.2002, upholding the stand of the PGI.

(2.) The facts above mentioned are not in dispute. Based on these facts, Mr. Sehgal, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the cut off date of 30th June was arbitrary and that the extensions in the joining time given to Dr. Amita Aggarwal by the Director were wholly without jurisdiction as Entry No. 40 of Schedule 1 of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research Chandigarh Rules, 1967, envisaged only an extension of 30 days on the hands of the Director. It has accordingly been urged that the extension granted to Dr. Amita Aggarwal from 25.2.1995 to 15.7.1995 by the Director was completely unauthorised and had unnecessarily delayed the appointment of the appellant by several months. Mr. Sehgal has also raised a plea with regard to the counting of ad hoc service for the purpose of determining the eligibility of four years experience and in this connection, has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rudra Kumar Sain and others v. Union of India and others, 2000 AIR(SC) 2808.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.