SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.
State of Orissa, Appellant
Versus
Dr. Sivasanker Lal Bajoria and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 4456 of 1986
Decided on 6-9-1994.
Constitution Of India,1950 - Claim For Appointment - Quash - State Government in created a post - Professor in Cardiology in Medical College Hospital at Cuttack Swain who was an Assistant Professor in was appointed by transfer as Assistant Professor of Cardiology by Order challenged validity of said appointment by a separate writ petition filed in that regard-However Government since withdrew said appointment itself writ petition came to be dismissed- subsequently when Dr- was appointed as Assistant Professor Cardiology on that appointment also came to be challenged by writ petition out of which present appeal has arisen as respondent and State as respondent sought in that writ petition was for quashing appointment and for issuing a direction to State Government to consider - Held, Court could be considered- However it is sought to be contended by senior counsel that in view of declaration given by High Court that was eligible for post when Swain was appointed and when consideration was not eligible to be considered his subsequent appointment should not stand in way of consideration of case for appointment to a vacancy which existed Court find no force in contention contended by learned counsel for that had his appointment been quashed would have been open him to contend that on date when he was appointed he had necessary qualifications while on was not having such qualification and therefore his appointment would not be illegal and remained unassailable- When appointment was not quashed he could have no grievance and that therefore no vacancy existing in post of Assistant Professor Cardiology in said collage for which appellants claim for appointment could be considered as directed by High Court declaration that appointment on was illegal and when High Court had specifically declined to go into that question no vacant post existing for consideration of claim as per directions given by High Court- This situation makes order of High Court unworkable- Accordingly no need arises to consider argument made in support of order under appeal - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in OJC No. 428 of 1983, dated February 28, 1986.
2. The State Government in G.O. No. 15882-H, dated April 19, 1979 created a post of Asstt. Professor in Cardiology in S.C.B. Medical College Hospital at Cuttack. Dr. Urmila Kumari Swain, who was an Assistant Professor in Paediatrics, was appointed by transfer as Assistant Professor of Cardiology by Order dated November 9,1979. Dr. S.L.Bajoria challenged the validity of the said appointment by a separate writ petition filed in that regard.However, the Government since withdrew the said appointment itself, the writ petition came to be dismissed. subsequently, when Dr. Mruthyunjaya Satpathy was apoinrted as Assistant Professor, Cardiology on February3, 1983, that appointment also came to be challenged by Dr. Bajoria in the writ petition out of which the present appeal has arisen. Dr. Bajoria impleaded therein Dr. Satpathy as respondentNo,2 and the State as respondent No. 1. The relief sought in that writ petition was for quashing the appointment of Dr. Mruthyunjaya Satpathy and for issuing a direction to the State Government to consider him as eligible for appointment in that post from the year 1979. The High Court in the judgment held that under 1970 Regulation Dr. Bajoria was eligible to be considered for promotion in the post of Asstt. professor in which Dr. U.K. Swain had been appointed and non-consideration of his case for appointment was unjustified. It also held that in the year 1979 Dr. M. Satpathy was not eligible for appointment as Asstt, Professor in Cardiology though he was eligible for such appointment in the year 1983. It also held that it was unnecessary to go into the appointment of Dr. Satpathy as an Asstt. professor. Accordingly, direction was given as under:
"In the result, we would direct opposite party No.1 the State to reconsider the question of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor of Cardiology with retrospective effect from 9-11-1979 and to allow all service benefits to him in case he is found fit for promotion to such post, expeditiously."
This order came to be challenged in this appeal by the State.
3. Though arguments are sought to be addressed to support the order under appeal, no need arises to consider them for the simple reason that this Courts direction to State whether there is more than one post of Asstt. Professor of Cardiology available for consideration of the claim of the appellant has failed to evoke the needed response. The affidavits filed make it clear that the existing post of Assistant Professor of Cardiology for which the appellants claim for appointment if to be considered is the one already occupied by Dr. Satpathy. The fact that the High Court has specifically declined to go into the validity of the appointment of Dr. Satpathy, who is still holding that post makes unavailable a vacant post for which the claim of Dr. Bajoria as per the directions of the High Court could be considered. However, it is sought to be contended by Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, the learned senior counsel for Dr. Bajoria that in view of the declaration given by the High Court that Dr. Bajoria was eligible for the post in the year 1979 when Dr. U.K. Swain was appointed and when consideration for Dr. Satpathy was not eligible to be considered, his subsequent appointment should not stand in the way of consideration of Dr. Bajorias case for appointment to a vacancy which existed in the year 1979. We find no force in the contention.
4. It is rightly contended by the learned counsel for Dr. Satpathy that had his appointment been quashed, it would have been open to him to contend that on the date when he was appointed, he had the necessary qualifications while as on that date Dr. Bajoria was not having such qualification and therefore, his appointment would not be illegal and remained unassailable. When the appointment of Dr. Satp
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.