Nitya Nand vs State Of Haryana & Ors

4. The answer to the aforesaid question, obviously, must be found with reference to Haryana Medical Education Service Rules 1988 (amended in 2007) (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules' ) but before we do that, it will be appropriate that material and relevant facts are noticed first.

5. Dr. Nitya Nand (Appellant) and Dr. P.S. Ghalaut (Respondent No. 4) joined Haryana Medical Education Service as Lecturer in 1981. The appellant is said to have been confirmed as Lecturer in the Department of Medicine on July 12, 1984 while respondent No. 4 was confirmed as Lecturer on July 26, 1984. The issue concerning inter-se seniority between 2 appellant and respondent No. 4 as Lecturer reached this Court in C.A. No.7608/95, P.S. Ghalaut V. State of Haryana and Others, (1995) 5 SCC 625, and this Court vide judgment dated August 3, 1995 held that the appellant was senior to respondent No. 4 as Lecturer. The appellant as well as respondent No. 4 after they were allowed to cross 1st efficiency bar and on the fulfillment of the requisite qualifications and experience were re-designated as Reader and upon their crossing 2nd efficiency bar and fulfilling the qualifications and experience for the post of Associate Professor, they were re- designated as Associate Professor. The Appellant was appointed and designated as Reader with effect from June 26, 1986 and Associate Professor with effect from June 26, 1991 while the respondent No. 4 was appointed and designated as Reader with effect from September 11, 1986 and Associate Professor with effect from September 11, 1991. In view of the vacant posts obtaining then, the appellant was promoted as ad hoc Professor on August 6, 1993, while respondent No. 4 was promoted as Professor on ad hoc basis on December 23, 1993 but both of them continued to hold substantive posts of 3 Associate Professor. The respondent No. 4, vide order dated July 19, 2006 was selected as Floating Professor under rule 10 of the Rules. The appellant as well as respondent No. 4 were promoted as Senior Professor (erstwhile Professor) substantively with effect from May 2, 2007. It was clarified that their inter-se seniority shall be decided later on. Ultimately, vide communication dated November 30, 2007 inter-se seniority of the appellant and respondent No. 4 to the post of Senior Professor was decided by the Government whereby the appellant was accorded seniority over respondent No. 4 and office order came to be issued on December 3, 2007.

6. The present respondent No. 4 challenged the communication dated November 30, 2007 and the office order dated December 3, 2007 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. As noticed above the High Court set aside the communication dated November 30, 2007 and office order dated December 3, 2007; allowed the writ petition and held that respondent No.4 would rank senior to the appellant to the post of Senior Professor.

Hence the post will remain in abeyance till the incumbent is adjusted against the permanent post or retires.

15. We find no legal infirmity in the consideration of the matter by the High Court. The view of the High Court calls for no interference.

16. In what we have discussed above, appeal must fail and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

........................J (Tarun Chatterjee) ........................J (R. M. Lodha) New Delhi, November 13 , 2009.