Case: Dr. Umakant Saran Vs. State of Bihar &amp; Others

Professor of Surgery and the Principal of the College and in due course the Vice Chancellor accepted the proposal that the post of Casualty Officer should be recognised as a teaching post. On 12-6-1963 the State Government wrote to the Secretary, Indian Medical Council that the post of Casualty Officer must also be recognised as a teaching post. In its letter dated 4-11-1963 the State Government informed the Secretary, Medical Council that Dr. Mahendra Pratap Sinha, M. S. (that is respondent No. 5) was one of the 8 Casualty Officers and had teaching experience from 23-9-1959 to 5-8-1963. In reply to that letter the Secretary on 6-2-1964 informed the Government that thought they were not very much in favour of Casualty Officers being recognized as holding teaching posts the Executive Committee had decided that the teaching done by the 8 Doctors as Casulty Officers shall be counted, as a special case, as teaching done by the Registrar for the purposes of appointment to the higher posts. It will be seen that this decision had been taken quite a long time before the Writ Petition had been filed, Respondent No. 5, therefore, found a place in the same class as Registrars, Tutors etc. 12. Similar is the case of respondent No. 6. He held a supernumerary post of a Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Patna Medical College Hospital from 30-12-1959 and while in that post he had to teach under-graduate and post-graduate students. On 22-10-1962 Government issued a notification that 8 Doctors including respondent No. 6 were permitted to count certain periods of their service towards teaching experience. Respondent No. 6 was permitted to count his service from 30-12-1959 onwards towards teachding experience. Later, on 20-4-1963 Government seems to have gone back on this decision. But on representations being made, Government on 21-9-1964 directed that these Medical Officers may be permitted to count certain periods when they were on supernumerary duty towards teaching experience. One of the Medical Officers was respondent No. 6 and the period which was allowed to be counted was from 30-12-1959 to 2-7-1963 and again from 4-11-1963 to 9-1-1964. On the latter date respondent No. 6 was appointed Registrar, Department of Surgery, Patna Medical College Hospital on a temporary basis. He held that position till he was appointed a lecturer on 19-8-1965. 13. It is not disputed that respondents 5 and 6 had the necessary academic medical qualifications for appointment and if they also had the necessary teaching experience, as held by the Government, they would be eligible for appointment as lecturers in Surgery. The Medical Council had recommended that a lecturer in Surgery should be a Registrar or should have held an equivalent post in Surgery or like Clinical Department for at least 3 years in a teaching institution. It is clear from what has been already stated about respondents 5 and 6 that they were holding a post equivalent to the Registrar or Resident Medical Officer for much more than 3 years in the Medical College Hospital and hence they were eligible for appointment as lecturers. 14. Even so Dr. Saran complained that he was senior to respondents 5 and 6 and since they were all in the same class of teachers, his seniority could not be ignored. There can be no doubt that he was senior to respondent No. 5 but the same cannot be said with regard to respondent No. 6. It is true that respondent No. 6 was absorbed in the Medical Service for the first time in 1957 and in that sense he was junior to Dr. Saran pointed out, respondent No. 6 had been working as Assistant Malaria Officer from 1953 in a grade equivalent to that of Civil Assistant Surgeon and that on his absorption in 1957 as a Civil Assistant Surgeon, his seniority was counted in the cadre as from the date he was appointed as the Malaria Officer i.e. 1953. He cannot, therefore, be regarded as junior to Dr. Saran. Therefore, the latter cannot question the appointment of respondent No. 6 either on the ground that he was junior to him or on the ground that respondent No. 6 did not have teaching experience for 3 years. 15. As between Dr. Saran and respondent No. 5 it is true that respondent No. 5 was his junior in service. But he had the requisite minimum teaching experience which the petitioner did not have. It is not necessary for us to consider in this case whether the lecturers posts which were in class I service were filled by promotion, as contended for the appellant, or by deputation, as contended on behalf of the State. Assuming that the appellants contention is correct that the lecturers posts were filled by promotion, then it will have to be shown that the appellant, though he had the requisite qualification for his promotion, had been disregarded in favour of a junior. The answer made by the State Government is that they had taken the decision to fill the posts on March 31, 1965 and on that day the appellant had not even completed the minimum period of teaching experience while the other two had done so. In other words, the case is that the appellant was ineligible for appointment when the decision was taken. It is true that the appointment was actually notified on 19-8-1965 when the appellant had also completed his 3 years of experience. But obviously that is irrelevant. Decisions have to be taken first before appointments are notified. The usual administrative process takes some time. The appellant sought to controvert the statement of the Government that the decision had been taken to make the appointments on March 31, 1965. But we do not think there is any substance in that contention. It would, thus follow that while respondents 5 and 6 were eligible for appointment as lecturers on 31-3-1965 the appellant was not and, therefore, he cannot be regarded as aggrieved for the purpose of the relief claimed by him.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]13. It is not disputed that respondents 5 and 6 had the necessary academic medical qualifications for appointment and if they also had the necessary teaching experience, as held by the Government, they would be eligible for appointment as lecturers in Surgery. The Medical Council had recommended that a lecturer in Surgery should be a Registrar or should have held an equivalent post in Surgery or like Clinical Department for at least 3 years in a teaching institution. It is clear from what has been already stated about respondents 5 and 6 that they were holding a post equivalent to the Registrar or Resident Medical Officer for much more than 3 years in the Medical College Hospital and hence they were eligible for appointment as lecturers14. Even so Dr. Saran complained that he was senior to respondents 5 and 6 and since they were all in the same class of teachers, his seniority could not be ignored. There can be no doubt that he was senior to respondent No. 5 but the same cannot be said with regard to respondent No. 6. It is true that respondent No. 6 was absorbed in the Medical Service for the first time in 1957 and in that sense he was junior to Dr. Saran pointed out, respondent No. 6 had been working as Assistant Malaria Officer from 1953 in a grade equivalent to that of Civil Assistant Surgeon and that on his absorption in 1957 as a Civil Assistant Surgeon, his seniority was counted in the cadre as from the date he was appointed as the Malaria Officer i.e. 1953. He cannot, therefore, be regarded as junior to Dr. Saran. Therefore, the latter cannot question the appointment of respondent No. 6 either on the ground that he was junior to him or on the ground that respondent No. 6 did not have teaching experience for 3 years15. As between Dr. Saran and respondent No. 5 it is true that respondent No. 5 was his junior in service. But he had the requisite minimum teaching experience which the petitioner did not have. It is not necessary for us to consider in this case whether the lecturers posts which were in class I service were filled by promotion, as contended for the appellant, or by deputation, as contended on behalf of the State. Assuming that the appellants contention is correct that the lecturers posts were filled by promotion, then it will have to be shown that the appellant, though he had the requisite qualification for his promotion, had been disregarded in favour of a junior. The answer made by the State Government is that they had taken the decision to fill the posts on March 31, 1965 and on that day the appellant had not even completed the minimum period of teaching experience while the other two had done so. In other words, the case is that the appellant was ineligible for appointment when the decision was taken. It is true that the appointment was actually notified on5 when the appellant had also completed his 3 years of experience. But obviously that is irrelevant. Decisions have to be taken first before appointments are notified. The usual administrative process takes some time. The appellant sought to controvert the statement of the Government that the decision had been taken to make the appointments on March 31, 1965. But we do not think there is any substance in that contention. It would, thus follow that while respondents 5 and 6 were eligible for appointment as lecturers on5 the appellant was not and, therefore, he cannot be regarded as aggrieved for the purpose of the relief claimed by him.