RENU BALA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Dr. Smt. Renu Uala, against the order dated 20.4.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5545 of 2004 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner (appellant herein) was disposed of rejecting the promotional benefit to the petitioner (appellant herein) from the year 1987 for the post of Professor.

(2.) TO highlight the controversy, it may be relevant to state briefly that the appellant was promoted on the post of Professor by notification dated 14.10.2006 issued by the Secretaiy, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi which gave a cause to the appellant to assail the same as, according to her case, she was eligible for promotion to the post of Professor from 17.4.1987 itself. However, the learned Single Judge partially granted her relief by treating her promotion to the post of Professor with effect from 19.1.1996 and not from 05.5.1997 which was granted to her by the notification dated 14.10.2006. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the petitioner -appellant claimed promotion with effect from 17.4.1987, but she had never functioned on the post of Professor even on an officiating basis. She, in fact, started officiating as Professor for the first time on 19.1.1996 and finally she was promoted by notification dated 14.10.2006 with effect from 05.5.1997, which was extended with effect from 19.1.1996 by the learned Single Judge .is she had started officiating as Professor form 19.1.1996.

(3.) AFTER having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as also the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and also from perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it could be instantly noticed that the Medical Council of India has merely (sic) guidelines which does not have a statutory force so as to have a binding effect on the claim of promotion. But even if it were so indicating that the Medical Council of India guideline holds a doctor eligible for promotion to the post of Professor if he/she has discharged the duties as Associate Professor for four year, it hardly needs to be emphasized that mere eligibility to a post cannot have the effect of claim of promotion, as the promotion on the post of Professor is based on merit -cum -seniority, meaning thereby if the post is a selection post, then merely eligibility cannot justify the claim for promotion. The Counsel for the appellant, at this juncture, endeavoured hard to impress upon this Court that all other similarly situated persons got the benefit of promotions from the year 1987 itself, although they had not discharged the duly on the post of Professor from the year 1987. But this has been disputed by the Counsel for the respondents who submitted that the post of Professor is a selection post and mere eligibility for a post do not hold a person entitled for promotion. As already stated, there is no material before this Court that other persons who are claimed to have been promoted on the posts of Professor, are similarly situated and, therefore, we cannot enter into a microscopic examination of this factual argument to the effect that the appellant was promoted on the post of Professor from the date she started officiating on the said post although the others were granted promotion without functioning on the post. However, promotion from the date of officiation has already been granted to the appellant by the learned Single Judge and, hence, we see no reason to grant any further relief to the appellant. Besides, this it is also relevant to mention that the appellant has already superannuated from the post of Professor and we find no ground as to how the claim of promotion with retrospective effect can be entertained at this belated stage.