SUSHILA SAWHNEY Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Dr. Sushila Sawhney not only questions the right of another lady Dr. Rabinder Madan respondent No : 2 herein to hold the post of Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Government Medical College, Jammu, but also wants a mandate of this court to respondent No : 1, the State of Jammu and Kashmir to remove the latter from the said post and appoint the petitioner in her place. The bone of contention is Government Order No: 311 -ME of 1976, dated 5 -11 -1976, whereby respondent No: 2 has been so appointed in place of the petitioner, who has been reverted to her original post of B -Grade Specialist.

(2.) PURSUANT to notification No.l Adv/ME/76 dated 16 -6 -1976, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 applied for being appointed as Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Government Medical College, Jammu. The minimum qualification for the said post was the one prescribed under the Jammu and Kashmir Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1974 (hereinafter the Recruitment Rules). The candidates were interviewed by the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose in terms of Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules, and respondent No. 2 was appointed to the post. The petitioner who was holding the said post till then was reverted to her original post of B -Grade Specialist. Whereas the petitioner contends that respondent No. 2 did not possess the requisite qualification for the said post and had thus no right to be appointed to it. Respondent No. 2 maintains that barring the condition of three years experience she fulfilled all other conditions, and having a definite edge over the petitioner in merit and ability, she was appointed to the post after the condition of three years teaching experience was relaxed in her favour by the Government. The petitioner is aggrieved of the aforesaid Government order on two grounds. One, that it is contrary to the provisions of Section 126 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, and two, that it is also contrary to Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules.

(3.) THERE does not appear to be any force in the first contention of Mr. Sethi that the impugned Government order is violative of the provisions of Section 126, inasmuch as, it has been passed without serving two prior notices on the petitioner in terms of the said section. There is no denial of the fact, that the petitioner was in the first instance appointed as Lecturer on mere adhoc basis and later on appointed as Assistant Professor again on ad hoc basis for a period of one year. She had, therefore, no right to hold the post permanently. The impugned Government order reverting her to her original post of B -Grade Specialist a rank lower than that of an Assistant Professor does not contain any stigma against her. In these cir -cumstances,it cannot be said to have been passed by way of punishment so as to attract the provisions of Section 126. The first contention of Mr. Sethi, therefore, fails.