Ashwani Kumar Sood vs State of H.P. and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) Declare the recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee dated 8.3.2000 qua Respondent No. 3 for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor Paediatrics simply on the basis of seniority, ignoring the fact that Respondent No. 3 was not eligible for promotion when the respective posts in the department of Paediatrics fell vacant, in violation of the recruitment and Promotion Rules to the post of Assistant Professor and instructions issued by Respondent State with regard to holding of DPCs for already existing vacant posts as arbitrary, discriminatory illegal and hence unconstitutional and quash the same.

(ii) Direct the Respondents to hold fresh DPC for filling up the vacant posts of Assistant Professors (Paediatrics) strictly as per the recruitment and promotion rules and consider the applicant for promotion to the said posts and promote the applicant to the said post, if otherwise eligible, from the date the applicant became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor with all consequential benefits.

(ii) Direct the Respondents to produce before this Hon''ble Court the relevant record pertaining to the case and to pay to the applicant cost of the litigation.

(iv) Any other relief which the Hon''ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the applicants.

Record reveals that for selecting candidates, on merit-cum seniority basis, to the post of Assistant Professor Paediatrics, the Departmental Promotion Committee had considered the name of Petitioner along with private Respondent. DPC met on 8.3.2000. At that time private parties were serving as G.D.O.s, HPHS(I). Affidavit dated 14.9.2011 filed by the Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has clarified the position with regard to the availability of the ACRs which were considered by the Committee. Records of the DPC also reveals that the available ACRs which were considered, pertaining to the Petitioner were for a period of five years commencing from 1994-95 up till 1998-99 whereas ACRs of the private Respondent were available only for a period of three years. No ACRs for the period 1992-93 and 1993-94 were available. Whether the same were prepared at all or not is also not evident. The DPC had considered the available ACRs with respect to all the candidates. No malafides have been alleged against the members of the DPC, as such, no interference is warranted in the present petition. All available record was duly considered by the Committee. The present petition is thus dismissed.