Inder Kaur vs Administrator, Associated Hospitals and Others

At one point of time the petitioner was the senior than respondents 3 to 7 in the grade of Sister when they were all working in the Associated

Hospitals. The fact of the petitioner being senior as Sister to these respondents is clearly borne out from the seniority lists issued vide Annexure

PIV to the writ petition, Wherein the name of the petitioner figures at Sr. No. 6 whereas the names of respondents 3 to 7 figure down below. This

position remained till 25.8.1981 when, based on the recommendations of the Subordinate Service Selection Committee, Medical Education

Department Jammu, office order dated 6. 8. 1981 was issued whereby sanction was accorded to the regular temporary appointment of the

petitioner as Sister Tuter in the grade of Rs. 550750 against available vacancy in the A. M. T. School Jammu.

Office order No 157/AHJ/1986 dated 14.2.1986 was issued whereby respondents 3 to 7 were promoted as Asstt. Matrons in the grade of Rs.

10001560. The petitioner is aggrieved of this order on the ground that she being senior most Sister was not considered while promotions to the

post of Assistant Matrons were being effected and that this nonconsideration has violated her fundamental rights under Article 16 of the

Constitution of India. Simultaneously the petitioner has also challenged the seniority list of Sisters issued in 1981 wherein her name was not shown

whereas the names of respondents 3 to 7 were duly shown.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

After the petitioner was appointed on being selected as Sister Tuter in the higher grade of Rs 550750, she ceased to be the Sister. It is admitted

case of the parties the grade of sister tuter at the relevant time was higher than that of the Sister and once the petitioner opted to go into that higher

grade, based on the selection of the Subordinate Services Selection Committee, she could not be deemed to be included in the category or grade

of sisters and therefore when the promotions to the posts of Assistant Matrons were effected i. e. in the year 1986, the petitioner no longer being in

the category or grade of Sisters could not be considered for such promotion.

In the case of Ramlal Khurana vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (1989) 4 SCC 99, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held

as under:

Lien is not a ward of art. It just connotes the right of a civil servant to held the post substantively, to which he is appointed. Generally when a

person with a lien against a post is appointed substantively to another post, he acquires a lien against the latter post. Then the lien against his

previous post automatically disappears. The principle being that no government servant can have simultaneously two liens against two posts in the

different t cadres. It is a well accepted principle of service jurisprudence.

Based on the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court I have no hesitatoin in holding that after her appointment as Sister Tuter on promotion

by selection in the AMT School Jammu, the petitioner ceased to held any lien on the post of Sister as she had walked out of that category and

grade by opting to be appointed on the higher post. If, therefore she was not the Sister in 1986, she had no right of being considered for promotion

to the post of Assistant Matren which, in accordance with the J&K Nursing (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules 1975, was required to be

filled by promotion from category of Sisters alone.

This petition has no merit and accordingly is dismissed, along with the connected Cr Ps, but without any order as to costs.