CHANDRA MOHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, on recommendations of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), was appointed on the post of Lecturer in the speciality of Neurology vide order dated 7. 1. 1991. On recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the petitioner was further promoted to the post of Reader (Neurology) vide order dated 7. 3. 1995. Respondent No. 2 (Dr. Ashok Pangariya) on the other hand, entered the services as Lecturer in General Medicine on recommendations of the RPSC vide order dated 13. 2. 1979. THE respondent No. 2 (Dr. Ashok Pangariya) was further promoted to the post of Reader in General Medicine against the quota of 1988-89 vide order dated 5. 6. 1989 and to the post of Professor in General Medicine against the quota of 1994- 95 vide order dated 24. 1. 1995 as per recommendations of the DPC.

(2.) THOUGH certain Super Specialities in the field of Medicine had been created way back in the year 1984-85, however, as per the policy decision of the State Government, separate Departments in the Super Specialities of Cardiology, Nephrology, Neurology and Gastro-enterology were created vide order dated 22. 6. 1995. Those doctors working in the above departments were ordered to be continued as such in the newly created departments till further orders. By yet another order dated 26. 6. 1995 options were called from the Professors and Associate Professors working in the department of General Medicine and having qualifications in the concerned Super Specialities for their adjustment/absorption on the same post in the newly created departments of Super Specialities. Having received the option, the respondent No. 2 (Dr. Ashok Pangariya) was re-designated as Professor (Neurology) vide order dated 14. 8. 1995. Challenging the orders dated 26. 6. 1995 as also the order dated 14. 8. 1995 passed in favour of the respondent No. 2 (Dr. Ashok Pangariya), the present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- " i. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the case and after examining the same be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 26. 06. 1995 and 14. 08. 1995 and the respondents may be directed to consider the candidature of the Petitioner for the post of Professor of Neurology from the date he attained eligibility with all consequential benefits. ii. If any prejudicial order to the interest of the petitioner is passed during the pendency of the writ petition, the same may kindly be taken on record and be pleased to quash and set aside. iii. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. "

(3.) MR. Sagar Mal Mehta, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, took similar objections as taken by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 in regard to delay and latches and that the policy decision of the State Government not to be challenged before a court of law.