news details |
|
|
| Appointment of Asst professor in GMC challenged | | Junior cannot claim seniority over superior: HC | | Jammu, February 16
Justice Nirmal Singh of J&K High Court Jammu wing in a petition filed by a lecturer of GMC, Jammu held that petitioner cannot claim seniority over and above superior, moreover, the appointment of the petitioner is subject to outcome of SLP which is still pending before the Supreme Court of India.
This significant judgment has been passed in a writ petition filed by Dr. Bhavna Koul, who was appointed as lecturer in GMC Jammu on November 10, 2000 and Dr. Rakesh Krishan Gupta also appointed as lecturer in the discipline of Pedodontia in Govt Dental College, Srinagar on December 4, 1995.
Dr. Rakesh Krishan Gupta filed a writ petition seeking direction to respondent state to allow him to join his duties at Jammu, as he is unable to join at Srinagar due to militancy. High Court vide interim order directed the respondents not to cancel the appointment. After the modification of the said order, the state allowed the petitioner to join against an appropriate post in Jammu Province and he was adjusted as lecturer in Dentistry Department of Medical College, Jammu against available vacancy of B-Grade Dental Surgeon.
Further in terms of Govt order August 4, 2003, Dr. RK Gupta was promoted as in-charge Assistant Professor in his own pay and grade. The state Govt on October 18, 2004 issued a tentative seniority list in which Dr. RK Gupta has been shown senior to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the seniority list.
Justice Nirmal Singh after hearing Advocate DS Thakur appearing for the petitioner, Dy AG S Hakim appearing for the State and Medical Education Department and Sr. Adv D C Raina along with Pranav Kohli appearing for Dr. Rakesh Krishan Gupta, observed that Sr. Adv DC Raina appearing on behalf of private respondent (Dr. RK Gupta) has submitted that present petition is to be dismissed on the ground of delay and states that private respondent was adjusted in the Dentistry Discipline of GMC Jammu prior to the appointment of the petitioner against an available post of lecturer. The Advocate further submitted that at the time of issuance of the petitioner was not even born on cadre strength of the said service as she came to be appointed only in the year 2000.
He further submitted that Dr. Riyaz Farooq and Dr. M Yaqoob Dar were selected as lecturer in Dentistry, Faculty GMC Jammu and were shifted to GMC Srinagar and their services are now governed by the rules of 1993 under which rules Dr. RK Gupta was also appointed. Moreover, the petitioner has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court in the SLP justifying the adjustment of Dr. RK Gupta in the GMC, Jammu. The petitioner by filling the present petition has no tried to mislead the court because on the one hand she has taken a stand before the Supreme Court justifying the adjustment of Dr R K Gupta at Jammu and on the other hand has filed the present petition challenging the adjustment that too at a belated stage.
Justice Nirmal Singh further observed that on merit petitioner has no case, private respondent was initially selected as lecturer in the Govt Dental College Srinagar, but was adjusted in the Dentistry discipline of GMC Jammu on the ground of militancy. This appointment of private respondent was under the J&K Dental Education College Gazetted Service Rules of 1993. The services of the respondent were shifted to Jammu and were adjusted in the GMC Jammu, later on have been shifted to Govt Dental College, Jammu. Therefore the petitioner cannot have any grievance because she admittedly is junior to the private respondent, who came to be appointed in the year 1995 and was adjusted as lecturer in GMC Jammu in July 1998. So far as the promotion of private respondent as in-charge Assistant Professor is concerned, for this, petitioner should have no grievance because the private respondent is senior to the petitioner and having a good record.
Further, this promotion as per the stand taken by the official respondents has been made on temporary basis. The official respondents have rightly stated that the substantive appointment to the post of Assitsnt Professor would be done in accordance with the rule at the relevant time. With these observations Court dismissed the petition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
