1997(3) Supreme 482
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. Agrawal and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
State of Bihar & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Ramesh Chandra & Anr. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11240 of 1995
With
Civil Appeal No. 11241 of 1995
Decided on 20-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant in C.A. No. 11240/95 and Respondent in C.A. No. 11241/95 : Dr. Shankar Ghosh, Sr. Advocate, Ratan Kumar Choudhry and Anil Kumar Jha, Advocates.
For the Appellant in C.A. No. 11241/95 and Respondent in C.A. No. 11240/95 : Braj K. Mishra and G.B. Sathe, Ranjit Kumar, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
Nanavati, J.-These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Patna, in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12274 of 1992. Civil Appeal No. 11240/95 is filed by the State of Bihar and Civil Appeal No. 11241/95 is filed by Dr. Choudhary, who was respondent No. 3 in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by Dr. Ramesh Chandra, respondent No.1 in these appeals and hereafter referred to as the respondent .
2. The respondent after obtaining MBBS degree joined the Prince of Wales Medical College, Patna as a demonstrator in the department of Anatomy. He did M.S. in General Surgery and thereafter M.Ch. in Neuro Surgery in 1967. He then joined the Christian Medical College, Vellore for some time and then went to a foreign country for further studies. He returned to India in 1973. By that time the Prince of Wales Medical College, Patna, was taken over by the State Government. As leave for two years which he had obtained while working as a demonstrator in the Prince of Wales Medical College had expired and he had not reported for duty his name was not included in the list of employees submitted to the Government when the said Medical College was taken over by it. Finding that his name was not included in the list, he joined Kurji Holy Family Hospital in March 1973. His services were terminated by that hospital in December 1978. Earlier, on January 18, 1974, he had submitted a joining report to the officer incharge of the Patna Medical College who had forwarded it to the Government. On June 29, 1981, he was permitted to join and was absorbed in the Bihar Health Services as a tutor in the department of Anatomy with effect from May 29, 1971 i.e. from the date the college was taken over by the Government. The Government then sought an opinion of the Medical Counsel of India as regards his eligibility for appointment on a teaching post in Neuro Surgery. After receiving concurrence of the Medical Council the Government created a post of Associate Professor in the department of Neuro Surgery and on April 27, 1983 appointed him on that post on ad hoc basis in anticipation of the concurrence of the Bihar Public Service Commission.
3. The appointment of respondent as a tutor with retrospective effect and his further appointment as an Associate Professor was challenged by one Dr. Sinha and by Dr. Chaudhary who were then working as Assistant Professors, by filing a petition (C.W.J.C. No. 1815 of 1983) in the Patna High Court. It was disposed of on 31.5.1983 as infructuous, as the State Government made a statement before the Court that promotion of both the writ petitioners as Associate Professors on ad hoc basis was approved by it but a notification to that effect could not be issued because of the stay order. The High Court, while dismissing the writ petition had observed that it would be open to the Government to issue the notification. Accordingly, on June 3, 1983, the Government issued a notification cancelling its earlier notification dated 27.4.1983 (whereby the respondent was appointed as an Associate Professor) and appointing all the three Doctors as Associate Professors on ad hoc basis. The order passed by the High Court was challenged by the respondent by filing an appeal in this Court. During the pendency of that appeal (Civil Appeal No. 4023 of 1991) the State Government, on January 24, 1991, issued a notification regularising the ad hoc appointments of all the three Doctors. Dr. Sinha s name was mentioned a serial No. 1 followed by the name of Dr. Chaudhary at serial No. 2 and the respondent s name appeared at serial No. 3. On 22.9.1991, this Court disposed of the appeal by passing the following order :
"After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and having regard to the subsequent events resulting into the appointment of the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5, we find that the dispute which requires determination relates to seniority only. It appears that the State Government has by it
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.