GIRISH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Original Application has been filed claiming the following reliefs: "7.1) That the impugned notification date March 20,2003 at Annexure -A/4 may kindly be quashed and set aside qua respondent No.2. 7.2) That the respondent department may be directed to reconvene the Departmental Promotion Committee for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Anaesthesia and as a result of review Departmental Promotion Committee, applicant may be held entitled to be appointed to the post in question from the date the respondent No.2 has been so appointed will all consequential benefits. 7.3) That if during the pendency of Original Application, the applicant is recommended and appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in Anaesthesia, from a date subsequent to the date of appointment of respondent No.2 in that event as a result of recommendation of review Departmental Promotion Committee, applicant may be held entitled to appointment to the post in question from the date of appointment of respondent No.2 with all consequential benefits including seniority over respondent No.2 and all consequential benefits. 7.4) That the respondent department may be directed to produce records pertaining to this case before this Tribunal. 7.5) Any other relief deemed proper in the circumstances may also be granted."

(2.) The applicant claims himself to be senior to the respondent No.2 in the feeder category and is eligible to be appointed as Assistant Professor (Anaesthesia). Despite this the respondent department on 20 3.2003, Annexure -A/4 promoted the respondent No.2 as Assistant Professor by ignoring the applicant. The applicant made representation on 23.3.2003 and 30.8.2003 as per Anneure -A/7 and A -8 but without any result.

(3.) The above factual position has not been denied in the reply filed by the respondents. However, main plank of contest by the respondent No.1 in the reply is that the service particulars of the applicant were not received by the respondent from the filed office at the time of holding of DPC and as such the applicant could not be considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee. It is further stated that DPC was held in March, 2003 for four vacant posts of Assistant Professors (Anaesthesia). These posts were to be filed up in ratio of 1:1 as per R&P Rules. The names of eligible GDOs were called for from the field offices, i.e. Director of Health Services, Director of Medical Education and Principals. Only three GDOs names were received till March, 2003. Immediate action to fill up these posts were required to be taken in view of ensuring MCI inspection and as a result a decision was taken to fill up three posts from amongst the three GDOs and recoup the shortfall of direct recruitment quota in future vacancies. The respondent No.2 was already working as Assistant Professor (Anaesthesia) on ad hoc basis at Dr. RPGMC, Tanda since November, 1997 and he was at Sr. No.3 as per information received from field offices. It was noticed subsequently that another doctor (applicant) is senior to the respondent No.2. faced with this situation a decision was taken to review the regular promotion of Dr. R.K. Verma (respondent No.2) and withdraw his promotion orders and to restore the vacancy to direct recruitment quota ion which it actually belongs. As and when the vacancy of Assistant Professor (Anaesthesia) under promotion quota will be available in future, the candidature of applicant as well as respondent No.2 alongwith other eligible doctors will be considered at the appropriate time.