JIWAN LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a bunch of writ petitions that have been filed by the doctors (Medical Department) Himachal Pradesh, in this Court. Since the contentions raised in these writ petitions as also disputes are interconnected, we deemed it proper to hear these writ petitions together. It is otherwise also desirable and convenient to dispose of these writ petitions by a common judgment. In order to appreciate and consider the respective contentions of the parties, it is proper to narrate the relevant facts as contained in these writ petitions, separately. CWP No. 288 of 1979 -Dr. Jiwan Lal and another v. State of H. P. and others,

(2.) It is contended by the petitioners that they were appointed as Deputy Directors of Health Services en regular basis and hat the petitioner No, 1 is holding the office of the Deputy Director of Health Services for the last about 4 1/2 years whereas the petitioner No. 2 is holding this post for about 3 1/2 years. It is further contended that the appointment of respondents 2 to 4 as Deputy Directors of Health Services is contrary to the provisions of rule 9(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Health Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It is a common contention of both trie petitioners that the appointment of respondents 2 to 4 as Deputy Directors of Health Services is vitiated as they were so appointed in complete disregard of the rights of the petitioners. Inter alia, it has been contended by the petitioners that the Departmental Promotion Committee (D. P. C.) constituted for making the appointment was not properly constituted as one of the members of the Committe was unauthorisedly inducted. According to the petitioners the Secretary (Health and Family Welfare) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, has been replaced by the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister. As such, it is contended by the petitioner that the constitution of the D. P. C. being illegal, the proceedings of such a committee are vitiated. The petitioners have also contended that the Annual Confidential Reports (A. C. Rs,) of the petitioners were initiated by an officer who was junior to them and was aspirant along with the petitioners for promotion to higher post. Accordingly, it is submitted by the petitioners that such A. C. Rs. could not be taken into consideration for further promotion. The appointment of respondents 2 to 4 is alleged to have been made in a hot -haste manner immediately after the final seniority list was issued. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of appointment of respondents 2 to 4 as Deputy Directors as also the order appointing respondent No. 2 as Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh. It is further contended that the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Director Health Services is illegal as he did not fulfil the requisite conditions as prescribed under the Rules. According to the petitioners he did not even have the requisite qualifying service. At the same time, it is contended by the petitioners that the post of Director Health Services in terms of the Rules, should have been filled up from amongst the members of Health Service Grade I officers and not from amongst the Specialists. The petitioners have asserted that their reversion from the post of Deputy Directors is illegal and in violation of the conditions of their service as also contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India. CWP No. 289 of 1919 -Dr. K Pandeya v. State and others.

(3.) In this writ petition it is contended by the petitioner that he had been working as Director of Health Services and he has been reverted without passing any reversion order in this behalf. It is further stated that he was on official duty as the Director of Health Services at Delhi from 6th November to 8th November, 1979, and at no stage he had been asked to hand over the charge of the post nor has he done so. According to the petitioner the respondent No. 2 has assumed the charge of the office of the Director of Health Services illegally. It is contended by the petitioner that while issuing his order of appointment as Deputy Director of Health Services along with respondents 2 and 3, he has been wrongly put at Serial No. 2 whereas respondent No. 2 has been put at Serial No, 1. According to him this is contrary to the provisions contained in rule 9 (4) of the Rules. The petitioner has further contended that he was entitled to be appointed as the Director of Health Services in preference to respondent No. 2. Inter alia it has been further contended by the petitioner that while considering the case of the petitioner for appointment as a Director of Health Services (super -time grade I general) his A. C. Rs. which were initiated by an officer junior to the petitioner, should not have been taken into consideration by the D. P. C. It is further averred that there was a serious contest between the petitioner on the one hand and Dr. S. M. L. Grover (now retired) and respondent No. 2 on the other for the post of Deputy Director and Director of Health Services. As such, according to the petitioner Dr. Grover was biased and prejudiced against the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 is also stated to belong to the group of Dr. Grover. Similarly, it is contended that the D. P. C. constituted to make appointment to the posts of Deputy Directors and Director was not properly constituted as instead of the Secretary (Health and Family Welfare) the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister was inducted as one of the members of the Committee. The petitioner has further contended that the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Director of Health Services has been made in hot -haste and the claim of the petitioner has been ignored. He has also contended that the appointment to the post of Director of Health Services should have been made from amongst the members of the Health Service Grade I (General) and not from the category of Specialists (General). The petitioner has ultimately prayed that the notification appointing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as Deputy Directors of Health Services along with the petitioner and placing the petitioner at serial No. 2 in the said notification be quashed. Similarly it has been prayed that the notification appointing respondent No. 2 as Director of Health Services be also quashed and it may be declared that the petitioner continues to hold the post of the Director of Health Services and that his reversion is illegal and void. CWP No. 311 of 1979 -Dr. R. P. Atreya v. State and others.