Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 1224
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
N.S.Sanjay Gowda, J.
Deepa S. – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 52800 of 2017 (S-RES)
Decided On : 06-12-2023
Prince Issac Aga, Advocate, Chandrakanth.R.Goulay, Advocate, Sagar.B.B., Advocate, Kalyan R., Advocate, , Advocate
Seniority in academic positions is determined by the date of appointment rather than subsequent qualifications, as established by the court's interpretation of the MCI Regulations.
Headnote:
SENIORITY - Promotion and Reversion of Academic Staff - Medical Council of India Regulations - The court interpreted the MCI Regulations regarding the qualifications for the posts of Assistant Professor and Lecturer, concluding that while both posts share the same qualifications, the seniority is determined by the date of appointment. The court emphasized that the petitioner, having been appointed as an Assistant Professor with a postgraduate degree, is senior to the respondent, who was initially appointed as a Lecturer and later promoted. The court quashed the orders that placed the petitioner below the respondent and reinstated her promotion to Associate Professor.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the abeyance of her promotion to Associate Professor and the reversion to Assistant Professor, while also contesting her placement below another respondent in the seniority list. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor in 2008, while the respondent was appointed as a Lecturer in 2000 and promoted to Assistant Professor in 2009 after obtaining a postgraduate degree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was senior to the respondent based on their respective dates of appointment and qualifications. The court rejected the argument that the respondent's promotion to Assistant Professor retroactively affected his seniority.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is senior to the respondent in the cadre of Assistant Professor and whether the orders regarding her promotion and seniority are valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that seniority is determined by the date of appointment and not merely by the acquisition of qualifications. The MCI Regulations do not allow for retroactive seniority based on later qualifications.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders that placed the petitioner below the respondent and reinstated her promotion to Associate Professor, ordering the institution to consider the respondent for promotion while maintaining the petitioner's seniority.
JUDGMENT
1. Writ Petition No.52800 of 2017 is filed challenging the communication dtd. 10/11/2017, by which the order promoting the petitioner to the post of Associate Professor (Microbiology) has been directed to be kept in abeyance and the Official memorandum dtd. 13/11/2017, by which the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Associate Professor to the post of Assistant Professor.
2. Writ Petition No.58172 of 2014 is filed challenging the endorsement dtd. 21/8/2014, which is to the effect that the petitioner has been kept below the ranking of respondent No.4 in the draft seniority list dtd. 7/7/2014 and also the Official Memorandum dtd. 7/7/2014 publishing the seniority list. She has also challenged the Official Memorandum dtd. 28/11/2013 by which respondent No.4 has been promoted to the post of Assistant Professor with retrospective effect from May, 2008.
3. The following facts are not in dispute:
4. The petitioner was appointed on 12/8/2008 as an Assistant Professor (Microbiology). As on the date of appointment of the petitioner, she possessed a Post- Graduate Degree in Microbiology and she was, thus, directly recruited as an Assistant Professor.
5. Respondent No.4 was appointed as a Lecturer on 24/5/2000. As on the date of his appointment, he only possessed the qualification of an Undergraduate Degree i.e., he possessed only an MBBS degree.
6. Eight years after respondent No.4 was appointed, he secured a post-graduation degree in Microbiology in the month of April, 2008. Pursuant to him acquiring the post- graduation degree, by a Notification dtd. 26/11/2009, respondent No.4 was promoted as an Assistant Professor. Thus, with effect from 26/11/2009, respondent No.4 entered the cadre of Assistant Professor.
7. It is obvious that since the petitioner had been appointed as an Assistant Professor directly on 12/8/2008 i.e., about 01 year 3 months prior to the promotion of respondent No.4 as an Assistant Professor, the petitioner would obviously be senior to respondent No.4.
8. However, the learned counsel for respondent No.4 strenuously contended that the Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulations considered both posts of Assistant Professor and Lecturer as one and the same, and prescribed the same qualifications.
9. It is contended that since respondent No.4, notwithstanding the fact that he had been appointed as a Lecturer in the year 2000, on his acquisition of a post- graduate degree, he was automatically re-designated as an Assistant Professor.
10. In this regard, reliance is sought to be placed on the clarificatory letter dtd. 11/8/2008 issued by the MCI, which states that the posts of Assistant Professor and the Lecturer belong to the same cadre. In short, it is contended that from the moment respondent No.4 acquired the post-graduate degree, his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Professor/Lecturer would have to be construed and not from the date of his entry as a Lecturer.
11. In my view, this argument cannot be accepted. No doubt, the MCI Regulations do state that for the post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer, the educational qualifications are the same.
12. As already noticed above, when respondent No.4 was appointed as a Lecturer, he did not, admittedly, possess a post-graduation degree, whereas the petitioner, at the time of her appointment, did possess a post-graduation degree. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor, whereas respondent No.4 was appointed as a Lecturer.
13. Merely because the educational qualifications under the MCI Regulations for both the posts of Lecturer and Assistant Professor are the same and both are considered to be the same cadre, respondent No.4 cannot claim that he was borne on the same cadre of Assistant Professor, from the day he procured the post-graduate degree i.e., in April, 2008.
14. It is also to be noticed here that respondent No.4 was actually promoted as an Assistant Professor only on 26/11/2009 and the Official Memorandum dtd. 28/11/2013 which was reli
