PREM CHAND MACHHAN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner obtained postgraduate degree in Medicine from the Himachal Pradesh University after undergoing the course with effect from 28.1.2000 to 29.1.2003. Respondent-State issued an advertisement vide Annexure R-2 whereby applications were invited for filling up the posts of Registrars in the prescribed proforma. Total 8 posts were advertised in the subject of medicine. Out of them, 3 posts were meant for Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC) and 5 posts were meant for Dr. Rajindra Prashad Medical Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment No. College, Tanda. 2 posts were advertised in the subject of Nephrology.

(2.) Interviews were held on 7.2.2003 and the result was declared vide Annexure R-3. Petitioner was selected for the tenure post of Registrar in the subject of Nephrology. He served in the Department of Medicine from 7.4.2003 to 8.5.2006. Necessary certificate to this effect was issued by the Professor and Head, Department of Medicine, IGMC, Shimla (Annexure P-3). Respondents re-designated three doctors, namely, Dr. Sanjay Mahajan, Dr. Sujit Singh Raina and Dr. Baldev Singh Rana as Assistant Professors vide Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-5/A. Petitioner also made representation on 30.12.2008 seeking re-designation at par with these doctors.

(3.) The precise case of the petitioner is that though he was selected for the tenure post of Registrar in Nephrology, however, as a matter of fact, he has worked and discharged the duties of Registrar in the subject of Medicine. It is also the case of the petitioner that there is no separate Department of Nephrology. The stand projected by the respondents in the reply is that since the petitioner has been selected against the tenure post of Registrar in the subject of Nephrology, he could not be redesignated/ promoted to the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of medicine. In other words, the case of the respondents is that petitioner case can only be considered in the stream of Nephrology. It is also contended that Nephrology is a super-specialty and medicine is merely a specialty.