SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 980

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N. RAY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.
Dr. J.N. Banavalikar, Appellant
VERSUS
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 1995 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 7802 of 1995),
D/- 21-9-1995.

Advocates:
HARISH N.SLAVE, K.R.NAGARAJA, MADHU TEVATIA, R.SANTHANA KRISHNAN, RAJIV DHAWAN, Ranbir Yadav, SHYAMALA PAPPU, V.S.CHAUHAN

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Article 14 – Appeal is directed against order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition appellant, Dr. Banavalikar is a doctor with specialisation in tuberculosis and chest diseases – Appellant joined the medical service under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi – Appellant was posted as Superintendent-cum-Senior Consultant in Tuberculosis in. Hospital, Delhi on retirement of Dr. R. P. Bagchi from Municipal Service at that time was holding the post of specialist Grade 1 (TB and Chest) in the said RBTB Hospital – In the letter posting the appellant as Medical Superintendent, it was specifically mentioned that he would get own pay scale while holding the charge of Medical Superintendent –Held, In the facts and circumstances of this appeal, it is not possible to hold that the impugned action in removing the appellant and appointing is unfair or unjust or irrational or arbitrary or tainted with any mala fide intention – Contention of the appellant that in order to accommodate a junior doctor as Medical Superintendent in I. D. Hospital. 332 had been moved out from the said hospital to replace the appellant as Medical Superintendent of RBTB hospital, is not only vague but lacks in particulars forming the foundation of such contention – Further, in the absence of impleadment of the junior doctor who is alleged to have been favoured by the course of action leading to removal of the appellant and the person who had allegedly passed mala fide order in order to favour such junior doctor, any contention of mala fide action in fact i.e. malice in fact should not be countenanced by the Court – Appeal dismissed.

Judgement

G. N. RAY, J.:- Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. This appeal is directed against order dated March 21, 1995 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No.3995 of 1994. The appellant, Dr. Banavalikar is a doctor with specialisation in tuberculosis and chest diseases. The appellant joined the medical service under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 28-4-1980. The appellant was posted as Superintendent-cum-Senior Consultant in Tuberculosis in Rajan Babu T.B. Hospital, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as RBTB Hospital) on 31st March, 1989 on retirement of Dr. R. P. Bagchi from Municipal Service. Dr. Banavalikar at that time was holding the post of specialist Grade 1 (TB and Chest) in the said RBTB Hospital. In the letter posting the appellant as Medical Superintendent, it was specifically mentioned that he would get own pay scale while holding the charge of Medical Superintendent. The appellant continued as Medical Superintendent of the said RBTB Hospital for about five and half years. The appellant was relieved from the charge of Medical Superintendent of RBTB Hospital. The appellant was intimated that he would continue to work as Senior Chest Specialist in the said hospital as before. The respondent No.2 Dr. Sudhakar Patnaik who was working as Medical Superintendent in I.D. Hospital was given the charge of Medical Superintendent in RBTB Hospital. It may also be indicated here the appellant was 327 given ad hoc promotion to the post of Supertime Grade I (clinical) in the pay scale of Rs.5900-6700 with effect from 1-6-1994 initially for a period of one year or till such time the post would be filled up on regular basis or till further orders whichever would be earlier. Such ad hoc promotion was given to the appellant while he was holding the dual charge of Medical Superintendent and Specialist Grade I (TB and Chest) in the said RBTB Hospital.

4. The appellant challenged the order of his removal from the post of Medical Superintendent of RBTB Hospital by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Delhi High Court inter alia contending that the post of Medical Superintendent of RBTB Hospital had always been held by the Senior specialist in Tuberculosis and chest diseases and the appellant being the senior most specialist in Tuberculosis and chese diseases of the said hospital, was given the charge of Medical Superintendent with effect from March 31, 1989 on retirement of Dr. Bagchi. He had held the post of medical Superintendent of RBTB till the impugned order of his removal from the post of Medical Superintendent and appointment of Dr. Patnaik to the said post was made. The appellant contended that in a specialist Hospital like RBTB Hospital, no one should be appointed as Medical Superintendent of the said Hospital who did not possess the specialisation in Tuberculosis and Chest diseases. The appellant contended that he being senior most chest specialist in the said hospital had been appointed to the post of Medical Superintendent of RBTB Hospital and there was no valid reason for his removal from the said post and appointing Dr. Patnaik who had specialisation in Pathology and who at the relevant time was holding the post of Medical Superintendent in the I.D. Hospital. The appellant also contended that the impugned order had resulted in his demotion without any basis. The writ petition, however, on contest, was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court inter alia on the finding that Dr. Patnaik was senior to the appellant in the cadre of specialist Grade 1 and senior most doctor used to be given the charge of Medical Superintendent and the post of Medical Superintendent had no separate scale of pay. It was also held by the High Court that the appellant had no legal right to continue as Medical Superintendent and if a person senior to him was appointed as Medical Superintendent, the appellant had no occasion to feel aggri




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top