SATYAWATI RANA Vs. A P SINGH NARANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Letters Patent Appeal arise out of judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.1.1990. The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (hereinafter called "the PGI") issued an advertisement No. 2/88, Annexure P-3, calling for applications to fill in various posts including one post of Assistant Professor in Clinical Biochemistry (Super-speciality of Gastroenterology). The appellant applied for the said post. She along with other candidates including respondent No. 1-Dr. A.P. Singh Narang appeared before the Selection Committee for the interview on 24.9.1988 and was selected and duly appointed on 14.10.1988 vide Annexure P-4. This selection was challenged by respondent No. 1 -Dr. A.P. Singh Narang on several grounds these being primarily;

(2.) The learned Single Judge accepted both the contentions and by an elaborate process of reasoning observed that the appellant had only a M.Sc. Degree in inorganic Chemistry and a Ph.D in Neurology from the PG.I which had no concern with the subject of Biochemistry much less Clinical Biochemistry and as such, was not eligible for the post in question. The learned Single Judge also observed that Professor Saroj Mehta-respondent No. 4 who was a Member of the Selection Committee in the capacity of an Internal Expert and, therefore, had ample opportunity for influencing other members of the Selection Committee. The writ petition was accordingly allowed on 10.1.1990. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) When this matter came up for motion hearing, it was dismissed in limine by the Division Bench on 16.1.1990. The appellant thereafter approached the Hon'bie Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 236 of 1990 which was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated April 1, 1997 and the matter was remanded to this Court for decision on merits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also clarified that the stay granted by it would continue till the disposal of the appeal. The net result is that as on today, the appellant continues to be in service and we are now informed that she had been promoted first as an Assistant Professor and thereafter as a Professor.