Dr. Manmohan Bramta vs State of HP and Others

A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J.—Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The only point urged in the present petition is that respondent No. 3 did not possess the essential qualification of three years teaching experience after Post-graduation. In response to this grievance, respondent No. 3 on affidavit has stated that she completed her Post-graduation in June, 2009 and thereafter served as Assistant Professor in Oral Surgery from 1st October, 2009 to 19th January, 2010 in MN DAV Dental College, Solan. Thereafter, she joined Himachal Pradesh Government Dental College on 20th January, 2010 and was in continuous service till she filed application on 8th October, 2012. Going by these dates, which are indisputable, nor there is any controversy about the fact that both the Colleges were recognized by the Dental Council of India, it is explicitly clear that respondent No. 3 had the experience of being Assistant Professor from 1st August, 2009 till 8th October, 2012 without any break except the change of the College from MN DAV Dental College, Solan to HP Government Dental College. In other words, she fulfils the essential qualification of three years teaching experience after Post-graduation.

The argument of the petitioner, however, rests on the communication issued by the Dental Council of India dated 24th February, 2012, Annexure P-10, which states that each faculty will have to serve a minimum period of one year (12 months) in a Dental College and no period less than this would be counted as teaching experience. Reliance placed on this communication, in our opinion, is ill-advised. Neither the advertisement on the basis of which, selection process commenced, nor the rules for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor provide for such condition. That condition cannot be read into the advertisement on the basis of which the candidates participated in the selection process. Taking any view of the matter, it is not possible for us to accept the argument that respondent No. 3 did not possess essential qualification, as predicated in the advertisement dated 8th September, 2012. After this order is dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 3, in any case, did not complete three years service experience, as during the relevant period, when she was in service, had obtained maternity leave of 84 days and that period will have to be excluded. For the reason already recorded, we are not inclined to accept this submission, as no such restriction is found in the advertisement or the Rules on the basis of which, selection process was commenced and concluded. Hence, this petition should fail. The same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.