DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. JYOTI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appeals are by Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'Dr.Singh') against the common judgement and order dated 03rd August, 1998 rendered in two writ petitions, registered as C.W.J.C.No. 8106 of 1997 and C.W.J.C. No.9321 of 1997 filed by Dr.(Mrs.) Mridula Verma (hereinafter referred to as 'Dr. Verma') and Dr.Jyoti Prasad (hereinafter referred to as 'Dr.Prasad') respectively.

(2.) IN both the writ petitions the petitioners contended that Dr.Singh does not posses the minimum required teaching experience of three years for being promoted to the post of Lecturer, Prosthetic, which was accorded to him. They also contended that it was improper on the part of the State respondents in not considering their candidature for being appointed to the said post.

(3.) THERE is also no dispute that in 1991 when the case for promotion of Dr.Singh to the said post was considered the case of Dr.Verma was not considered at all. THERE was no just reason why the case of Dr.Verma was not considered. THERE is no promotion policy of the government. The aforementioned policy of the Government of India does not suggest that seniority is a fact to be taken note of for grant of promotion to the said post. As aforesaid, the State Government has not laid down any law fixing seniority as one of the requirements for granting promotion to the said post. Even after the positive direction of the Division Bench rendered on 20th December, 1996, the case of Dr.Verma was not considered on the ground that she is junior to Dr.Singh. At that stage it was added that the case of Dr.Verma will not be considered for she has been proceeded with departmentally on serious charges. Although in 1991 no charge sheet was issued against Dr.Verma it appears that before 25th April, 1997 a charge sheet was issued against her but no final decision in the disciplinary proceeding has yet been taken. In such situation, the case of Dr.Verma was also required to be considered and the decision in relation thereto should have been kept in a sealed cover and if she was preferred over Dr.Singh, the post ought to have been kept vacant until the departmental proceeding reached its finality, inasmuch as there was only one post. For no just reason this procedure was not adopted, and, accordingly, Dr.Verma had reasons to be aggrieved by the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 19th August, 1997 declaring Dr.Singh fit for, promotion to the said post. However, inasmuch as Dr.Prasad did not come within the zone of consideration, he had no reason to be aggrieved by the said decision, but then it was the contention of Dr.Prasad that neither Dr.Singh nor Dr.Verma was entitled to be promoted for they did not have required teaching experience, as was contended in his writ petition and, accordingly, if none of them could be promoted, the post in question will remain vacant and the same would be filled up by a proper person having all necessary requisite qualifications and when the cases of other persons will be considered, the case of Dr.Prasad will also be considered. The learned Judge partly accepted the contention of Dr.Prasad and declared that Dr.Singh did not have the requisite teaching experience by accepting the contentions as mentioned above.