Nigam Sharma vs The State of H.P. and others

Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge

The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers vide para No. 7 (i), (ii) & (iii):-

7 (i). That the letter dated 20.2.2006 (Annexure A-20) issued by the respondent No. 1 may kindly be quashed.

(ii). That the respondents No. 1 to 3 may kindly be directed either to make provisions in the existing Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Professor issued vide notification dated 16.5.1997 for the promotion of the applicant or to frame fresh/separate Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Professor (Sanskrit) in the similar manner as Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Reader (Sanskrit) have been framed vide notification dated 26.7.1997 (Annexure A-5.

(iii). That the respondents may further be directed to promote the applicant to the post of Professor accordingly w.e.f. the due date along with all consequential benefits.

In reply, respondents No. 1 & 2 have taken the following stand vide para 6 (v), (vi) and (vii):-

6 (v). That as per the R&P Rules of 1980, the post of Professor was to be filled by promotion from amongst the Associate Professor (Now re-designated as Reader) with,

(a) Bachelor degree in Ayurveda.

(b) PG degree in particular subject.

(c) Knowledge of Sanskrit up to Higher Secondary/Matric standard.

(d) 10 years teaching experience out which 5 years must be as Associate Professor in the subject.

As per the R&P Rules notified in the year 1997, the post of Professor is to be filled up 100% by promotion from amongst the Readers with 6 years of regular service with the essential qualification:-

(i) Bachelor degree in Ayurvedic from recognized University or Council of Indian Medicine established by law or from an Ayurvedic College.

(ii) P.G. degree in particular branch of specialty from any recognized University established by law or degree recognized by CCIM/HP Govt.

(iii) Should have studied Sanskrit as one of the subject in the course of Bachelor Degree in Ayurveda.

(iv) Teaching experience of 15 years after doing PG out of which 5 years as Reader/Associate Professor in the concerned subject.

The applicant is basically a Sanskrit teacher and does not possess bachelor degree in Ayurveda/PG Degree. R&P Rules for the post of Reader (Sanskrit) were notified vide notification dated 26.7.97 and the applicant was promoted to the post of Sanskrit Reader on dated 26.10.98 and was declared Head of the Department vide notification dated 11.5.1999.

Central Council of India Medicine (CCIM) has conveyed observation vide their letter No. 28-20/2005-Ay/9876 dated 5/6 December, 2005 that "The CCIM has decided that the higher scale of pay will be given to Sanskrit teacher after completion 10 years of service. Moreover Sanskrit teacher will be a full time teacher and he/she will not be promoted Professor/Reader in Ayurveda Cadre.

(v) As per R&P Rules the applicant does not possess essential qualification of Bachelor Degree in Ayurveda and PG degree in the particular branch of specially, hence the applicant cannot be promoted to the post of Professor.

6 (vi) & (vii). There exists no post of Professor Sanskrit in the department of Sanskrit in particular. However, the post of Professor is sanctioned for Sidhanta, Samhita & Sanskrit for which the BAMS/Ayurveda degree is a pre-requisite qualification, which the applicant does not possess. Hence Dr. Nigam Sharma, the applicant Reader Sanskrit is not eligible for promotion to the post of Professor in Ayurveda cadre.

There is no reply on behalf of the remaining respondents. However, as per statement at the bar made by the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 at the time of hearing, the said respondent has also adopted the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is stagnating against the post of a Reader for the last many years and in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India and Others Vs. Parashotam Das Bansal and Others, and A. Satyanarayana and others versus S. Purushotham and others, (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 416 (para 30) and by this Court in CWP (T) No. 2684/2008, Bhuvneshwer Gautam versus Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, decided on 6.4.2009 and CWP No. 2547/2009, Kushmayudh Kumar Sharma and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, decided on 7.7.2010, she has legitimate expectation and the right to be considered for at least another promotion in her service career.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No. 1 & 2/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for providing further promotional avenues to her in the light of the aforesaid judgments within six months from the date of production of copies of this judgment and the judgments referred to hereinabove before respondents No. 1 & 2/competent authority.

The petition as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of.