BANWARI LAL GAUR Vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF AYURVEDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, in the present writ petition, is claiming promotion to the post of professor (Basic Principles) with effect from 3.4.1992 with all consequential benefits in the Department of National Institute of Ayurveda, Madhav Vilas Palace, Amer Road, Jaipur.

(2.) THE petitioner submits that he was initially appointed as Vaidya Grade C in the Ayurveda Department of the Government of Rajasthan vide order dated 30.6.1966, and later on he was made Demonstrator on urgent temporary basis by the Ayurveda Department and was posted in Government Ayurveda College, Udaipur vide order dated 4.9.1974, vide yet another order dated 11.11.1974 (Annex. 2) the petitioner was given extension to hold the post of Demonstrator till regularly selected persons through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission are appointed and was made substantive on the post of Demonstrator later on. The petitioner claims that he was thereafter appointed as Lecturer on urgent temporary basis vide order dated 9.12.1976 and posted as Lecturer at Government Ayurveda College, Jaipur vide order dated 15.12.1976 (Annex. 3). He was asked to work in the Department of Basic Principles and he continued to work there as such in the Department of Basic Principles upto 31.12.1978. Support is sought from Annexs. 3 and 4 to the above said fact of being appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Basic Principles, which is not denied. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 National Institute of Ayurveda (hereinafter called 'the Institute') was established on 7.2.1976 and the administrative control of Ayurvedic College, Jaipur was transferred to the respondent from 1.6.1976 vide order dated 2.6.1976. Number of employees were screened and after such transfer the Screening Committee had recommended the name of the petitioner for absorption on the post of Demonstrator and accordingly the petitioner was posted as Demonstrator with the respondent from 1.1.1979, and he was again promoted though on ad hoc basis as a Lecturer in the Department of Basic Principles with effect from 1.1.1981. But the order of promotion as Lecturer was later on withdrawn, and the petitioner was permanently absorbed as Demonstrator vide order dated 24.11.1983. His seniority was determined vide order dated 2.6.1984. The order of being permanently absorbed as Demonstrator is attached as Annex. 5 and that of the seniority as framed on 2.6.1984 is attached as Annex. 6 to the writ petition. The petitioner has been shown to be working as Demonstrator in the Basic Principles Department. Vide Annex. 7 dated 1.5.1985. On the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee the Governing Body of the Institute had promoted the petitioner on regular basis as a Lecturer. His name appeared at S. No. 15 in Annex. 7. He got his next promotion as Assistant Professor vide Annex. 8 dated 21.7.1987 in the Department of Basic Principles itself. The petitioner was then promote as Associate Professor vide order dated 25.51988, (Annex. 9) in the same Department. Vide Annex. 10 he has also been given the charge of Head of the Department of Basic Principles. A seniority list Annex. 11 relating to Associate Professors was also circulated and he was shown to be the senior most person in the seniority list in his department.

(3.) THE petitioner submits that according to his information he was not promoted as Professor because his experience on the post of Demonstrator was not counted as teaching experience. According to him, as pointed out by him in his representation Annex. 13, he had a total experience of 17 years and 7 months to the graduates and 16 years and 4 months to the post graduates. In addition to that he had also published 7 books the details of which have been attached with the representation Annex. 13. Two of his books were also under publication and he had also relied that he had submitted thesis of two subjects. He had also attached his experience about supervision of M.D. (AYU) Research Work mentioning about 18 instances and had also mentioned that he had participated in 13 seminars. He had given as may as 114 press publications for the period from March 1965 to March 1992. He had been continuously giving representations from time to time but without any result. His grievance is that He has been discriminated by not counting the period spent on the post of Demonstrator while such a benefit has been given as a teaching experience to Smt. Vijay Laxmi and others, he has also stated that he was teaching the under graduates and post graduates classes when he was working as Demonstrator and for that purpose he relies on a letter Annex. 19 attached to the petition. He has also given the details of having taught under graduates and post graduates from 1979 to 1985 in para 18 of his petition which assertion of the petitioner has not been denied. He submits that under the N.I.A. Service Rules, 1982 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') the teaching experience for post graduates as qualification for promotion to the post of Professor is 10 years and according to him the petitioner has 17 years and 5 months teaching experience on the date when similarly situated persons were promoted. Thus, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner only on the ground that he has not got the requisite teaching experience by excluding the experience of teaching as Demonstrator is not legally maintainable.