MUKTA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined on the post of Tutor in Rajendra Medical College and Hospital, Ranchi (now it is being known as RIMS) on 7.11.1985, On 29.8.1988, she was designated as Assistant Professor. In course of time, several tutors/designate Assistant Professors were promoted to the post of Assistant Professor and were posted in different Medical Colleges, vide notification No. 1222 dated 31.12.1990 (Annexure 9 to the supplementary affidavit) with stipulation that if one would fail to join the post, he/she would be debarred for promotion for further three years. By the same notification, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor and was posted in Mahatma Gandhi Medical College, Jamshedpur. Admittedly, the petitioner did not join the promoted post at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College, rather continued to work in RMCH on the post of designate Assistant Professor. Again number of persons were promoted to the post of Assistant Professor, vide notification dated 19.12.1997 (Annexure 3) and were posted in different Medical Colleges with a stipulation that if the person would not Join, he/she would be debarred from being promoted for further five years. Petitioner by the said notification was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor and was posted at Nalanda Medical College, Patna. However, according to the petitioner, this was never the order relating to the promotion, rather the order of simple transfer.

(2.) Be that as it may, the petitioner admittedly did not Join the post at N.M.C.H. Thereafter final seniority list of the persons working at different Medical Colleges of the State on the post of Tutor and Assistant Professor was published wherein the petitioner's placement in the seniority list was at serial No. 29 whereas the respondent No. 4 was placed at serial No. 42.

(3.) Further case of the petitioner is that inspite of that the petitioner being placed above to respondent No. 4 in the seniority list, the petitioner, vide notification No. 310(2) dated 14.6.2006 (Annexure 5) was given promotion to the post of Associate Professor with effect from 1.1.2003 whereas the respondent No. 4 was given promotion on the post of Associate Professor with effect from 30.4.2001 and thereby the petitioner was made junior to the respondent No. 4, though she was senior to respondent No. 4. Subsequently, respondent No. 4, vide notification No. 257(7-A) dated 12.7.2008 (Annexure 7) was promoted to the post of Professor with effect from 30.4.2005 ignoring the claim of the petitioner on that post though she was senior to respondent No. 4 and therefore, notifications as contained in Annexure 5 and also in Annexure 7 have been sought to be quashed.