AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
Petitioner seeks a direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to consider his case for appointment as Lecturer in Government Ayurvedic Medical College Paprola from the date of appointment of his junior/respondent No.3. His further prayer is for promoting him to the post of Senior Lecturer after setting aside the promotion of respondent No.3 as Senior Lecturer.
The projected case of the petitioner as canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that:-
2(i). Petitioner and respondent No.3 joined the respondents-department of Ayurveda through H.P. Public Service Commission as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikaris on 2.1.1981 and 5.1.1981 respectively. Petitioner was senior to respondent No.3 as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari.
2(ii). On 4.6.1981, the petitioner while continuing as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari was adjusted in Ayurvedic Hospital Paprola in his own post and pay-scale against one of the vacant post of professor/assistant professor. Petitioner continued performing the functions assigned to him pursuant to office order dated 4.6.1981 till 3.4.1983. Thereafter, he and respondent No.3 were promoted as demonstrators on 4.4.1983. The stipulation in the office order dated 4.4.1983 was that the promotion was provisional and could be withdrawn at any time without assigning any reason.
2(iii). On 31.03.1987, the petitioner was transferred from the said college and was posted as Medical Officer in Government Ayurvedic Pharmacy Jogindernagar. He continued to serve thereafter as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari in Ayurvedic Dispensaries.
2(iv). The post of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari was interchangeable with that of Lecturer in Ayurvedic College Paprola. Respondents-department transferred respondent No.3 from the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari to the post of Lecturer in Government Ayurvedic College Paprola on 11.11.1998. As a consequence thereof, respondent No.3 took up his teaching job as Lecturer in the college.
The foundational grievance of the petitioner is that even though he was senior to respondent No.3 but was not transferred to the post of Lecturer in the Ayurvedic College Paprola. This has been alleged to be an illegal action on part of respondents No.1 and 2. The petitioner pleads that it was only when he represented to the respondents that he was asked to give his option as to whether he wished for transfer as Lecturer to Ayurvedic College from the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari. Petitioner initially submitted a conditional option, but later on he furnished his option in clear words seeking his transfer to the Ayurvedic College. Pursuant to the option exercised by him, an office order was passed on 4.4.2000, transferring him to teaching cadre in the said college.
2(v). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was senior to respondent No.3 as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, therefore, petitioner should have been appointed to the post of Lecturer prior in time to respondent No.3’s appointment as Lecturer on 11.11.1998. Learned counsel also contended that respondent No.3 was further promoted from the post of Lecturer to that of Senior Lecturer on 11.02.2000. This promotion of respondent No.3 was also not in consonance with law as petitioner senior to respondent No.3 as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari had been wrongfully denied appointment to the post of Lecturer and then to the consequential promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer. In the aforesaid background, this petition was filed claiming following substantive reliefs:-
“(i) That the respondents No.1 and 2 may be directed to consider the appointment of the applicant as Lecturer in the department of Ras-Shastra & Bhasjya Kalpana, in Govt. of H.P. Institute of Post Graduate Education and Research in Ayurveda, Paprola, by transfer from the general category of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari from the date his junior person, respondent No.3 has been appointed and to assign him seniority in the teaching cadre above the respondent No.3 and also to release all the monetary benefits which are found due and admissible as a result thereof alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date due till the actual date of payment thereof.
(ii) That the impugned promotion order of respondent No.3, Annexure A/5, to the post of Senior Lecturer in the Department concerned, which has been issued without considering the claim of the applicant being senior to him and possessing all the requisite qualifications/experience for the said promotion, may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to hold a review DPC for consideration of all the eligible persons including the applicant and to promote the applicant on the basis of his seniority, qualifications and experience in the feeding category of Lecturer/Demonstrator in the department concerned from the date the respondent No.3 has been promoted and to pay him arrears of pay resulting therefrom with all the consequential benefits alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date due till the actual date of payment thereof.”
The grounds for opposing the writ petition, set down in the replies filed to the writ petition and as put-forth by learned Deputy Advocate General are that:-
Post of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari in the respondent-department and Lecturer in Ayurvedic College are not interchangeable. Both have their separate cadres. Petitioner and respondent No.3 were appointed as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikaris in 1981. The petitioner was senior to respondent No.3 as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari. Both of them were provisionally promoted as demonstrators in the year 1984. In terms of stipulations of this order their promotions could be withdrawn from them at any time without assigning any reason. Petitioner continued to work as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari after March 1987. Recruitment to the post of Lecturer was 100% by transfer from eligible Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikaris based on exercise of options by them. Certain posts of Lecturer were lying vacant in the Ayurvedic College Paprola in the year 1998. For filling these posts, on 3.8.1998 options were sought by the respondents from eligible Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikaris for their transfer to the cadre of Lecturers in the Ayurvedic College. On 21.8.1998, petitioner furnished his option for his appointment as Lecturer in the said college. However, this option was withdrawn by him on 6.10.1998. Letter dated 6.10.1998 withdrawing the option was produced during hearing of the case, whereas respondent No.3 furnished his clear option for joining the college as Lecturer. Respondent No.3 was accordingly appointed as Lecturer on 11.11.1998. At that time, petitioner was nowhere in the picture in the cadre of Lecturers in the Ayurvedic college. Subequently when a post of senior Lecturer became available, respondent No.3 was considered and promoted against the said post. It has also been submitted that the petitioner furnished his clear unconditional option for joining the cadre of Lecturer in Ayurvedic College Paprola only on 10.05.2001. This was acted upon & the petitioner was accordingly appointed as Lecturer on 8.8.2001. He was further promoted to the post of Senior Lecturer on 17.04.2008. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the petitioner joined as Reader on 31.1.2012 and superannuated on 31.05.2018.
Taking into consideration the pleas raised by learned counsel for the parties, it becomes evident that;-
4(i). Both the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 had joined as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikaris in the year 1981. Petitioner was senior to respondent No.3 as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari. Cadre of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari was different and distinct from that of Lecturer in Ayurvedic College. The post of Lecturer in Ayurvedic College could be filled up 100% by transfer of eligible Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikaris on the basis of options exercised by them. On the availability of vacant posts of Lecturers in Ayurvedic College Paprola in the year 1998, official respondents sought options from the eligible Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikaris for their transfer to the cadre of Lecturers in the college. The petitioner and respondent No.3 gave their option for being appointed as Lectures. The option given by the petitioner on 21.08.1998 was withdrawn by him on 6.10.1998, whereas respondent No.3 joined the Ayurvedic College as Lecturer on 11.11.1998. Respondent No.3 in this manner became a Lecturer on 11.11.1998. Petitioner at that time was still in the cadre of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari. This was pursuant to his own choice.
4(ii). Petitioner had furnished his clear unconditional option to serve as Lecturer in the Ayurvedic College only on 10.05.2001 pursuant to which, he was offered appointment against the post of Lecturer in the college. Petitioner accepted this offer and joined as Lecturer on 8.8.2001.
4(iii). Respondent No.3 being senior to the petitioner as a Lecturer in the college cadre & eligible under the then prevailing Rules, was promoted to the post of Senior Lecturer on 11.2.2000. In fact by the time of promotion of respondent No.3 as a Senior Lecturer, the petitioner had not even become part of cadre of Lecturers in the college. Promotion of respondent No.3 to the post of Senior Lecturer on 11.02.2000 can not be faulted.
4(iv). In the cadre of Lecturers, petitioner was junior to respondent No.3. The action of the respondents are based upon the then existing rule position as well as options exercised by the private parties. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any illegality in the appointment of respondent No.3 as Lecturer on 11.11.1998 and his further promotion as Senior Lecturer on 11.2.2000. The case of the petitioner cannot be considered for appointing him as Lecturer prior to the appointment of respondent No.3. Petitioner had no claim to be appointed as Lecturer prior to respondent No.3. Consequently his claim for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer is also unfounded.
For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.