BHAVNA KOUL Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as Lecturer in Government Medical College, Jammu, vide Government Order No. 813 dt. 10th of Nov. 2000. Respondent No.4 was also appointed as Lecturer in the Discipline of Pedodonitia in Government Dental College, Srinagar, vide Government Order No. 558 -HME/95 dated 4th of Dec 95. The said respondent filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 1518/95, seeking a direction to respondent -State therein to allow him to join his duties at Jammu, as he is unable to join at Srinagar due to militancy. Direction was also sought not to cancel the appointment of said respondent. This court vide interim order directed the respondent State therein to not to cancel the appointment of respondent No.4 (petitioner in the above writ petition). The said order was later on modified and the State was directed to allow the petitioner to join against an appropriate post in Jammu province. Respondent No.4 thereafter was adjusted as Lecturer in Dentistry, Department of Medical College, Jammu, against the available vacancy of B -Grade Dental Specialist vide Government Order No.24 -HME of 1997 dt. 7th of Jan. 97. Vide Government Order No.469 -HME of 1998 dt. 3rd of July 98, respondent No.4 was adjusted as Lecturer in Dentistry Discipline in Government Medical College, Jammu. Further in terms of Government Order No. 868 -HME of 2003 dt. 4th of Aug 03, the respondent No.4 was promoted as Incharge Assistant Professor in his own pay and grade. The State Government vide Order dt. 18th of Oct 04, issued a tentative seniority list in which respondent No.4 has been shown senior to the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner in the present writ petition is seeking a writ of certiorari quashing Order dt. 7th of Jan. 97 whereby respondent No.4 was adjusted as B -Grade Specialist in Government Medical College, Jammu. Further writ of certiorari is also seeking quashment of Government Order No.868 -HME of 2003 dt. 4th of Aug 03 whereby the respondent No.4 was promoted as Incharge Assistant Professor and order dt. 18th of Oct 04 whereby the respondent No.4 has been shown senior to the petitioner.

(3.) ON notice, respondents have filed counter. Respondents 1 to 3 in their counter affidavit have taken on objection that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. It is stated that respondent No.4 was adjusted in Dentistry discipline in Government Medical College, Jammu vide order No. 469 -HME of 1998 dt. 3rd of July 98, whereas the petitioner came to be appointed as Lecturer in Dentistry Department, Government Medical College, Jammu, vide order dt. 10th of Nov. 2000, and therefore, she was well aware of the fact that the respondent No.4 has been adjusted as Lecturer in Dentistry discipline much earlier to her. It is stated that the petitioner did not challenge the adjustment order of respondent No.4 at the time of her selection and it is only after four years, the petitioner has approached this court. It is further stated that the appointment of petitioner as Lecturer is itself subject to the outcome of SLP filed by one Dr Parveen Akhter which matter is still pending before the Supreme Court. It is stated that the appointment/status of the petitioner is confirmed till the outcome of the said SLP, and therefore, she has no reason to challenge the valid appointment/absorption of respondent No.4. It is stated that the Dentistry department of Government Medical College, Jammu has been merged into Government Dental College, Jammu, and all the faculty members of Dentistry department of Government Medical College, Jammu, along with the petitioner and private respondent No.4 have been included in the service of Government Dental College, Jammu i.e. Dental Education. This has been done in terms of Government Order No. HME -GAZ -49/2005 dt. 17th of Aug05. It is thus stated that the services of respondent No.4 who earlier belonged to Dental Education department and subsequently absorbed in the Medical Education has been reverted to its original cadre of service. It is also stated that only a tentative seniority list has been issued and in case the petitioner is aggrieved of the same, she is at liberty to file her objections before the answering respondents. It is thus stated that respondent No.4 has only been given the charge as Assistant Professor on temporary basis and the same is not a substantive promotion.