The main legal principle established in the judgment is the need for a consistent and long-term policy in determining seniority and promotions to avoid ad hoc decisions and confusion. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to established principles and avoiding retrospective alterations that affect vested rights.

Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.

1. In the set of three writ petitions the basic dispute is the question of inter se seniority as between Dr. Suraj Nayak on one side and Dr. Chittaranjan Roy and others on the other side who are all in the Department of Preventive Social Medicine (PSM) as teachers. All parties have appeared, filed counter affidavits, rejoinders and pleadings being complete, have been heard at length for final disposal.

2. The facts are not in dispute. What is in dispute is the implication of various notifications issued by the State Government affecting inter se seniority and, as such, I would first consider the notifications and their implications and then apply it to the facts. The parties being doctors are in teaching posts in the Department of Preventive Social Medicine, which is a non-clinical subject. The basic legal issue as put forth by the parties is with regard to the legality of appointment and consequential promotions inter se the parties. I may note here that the pleadings of parties both the writ petitioners and the private-respondents are rather scattered in the three writ petitions, but for the purposes of decision with assistance of learned counsels I have been able to consolidate these notifications in an appropriate manner from various pleadings on record.

3. On 23.11.1976 the State Government resolved and notified its decision to re-designate the teaching posts. This notification was issued in the name of Governor and in absence of any other Rules on the subject would be deemed to be Rules within the meaning of Article-309 of the Constitution as also other such notifications issued subsequently and, thus, have force of statute. In these rules, in so far as it concerns the present litigation, it was, inter alia, provided that the first teaching posts would be re-designated as tutors whose basic qualification was to be M.B.B.S. It further provided that a tutor who had Post Graduate degree and teaching experience as tutor of not less than three years would be eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. It further provided that a person, who was Assistant Professor, and had teaching experience as such for five years, would be considered for promotion to the post of Associate Professor.

4. On 24.05.1978 State Government decided to amend the earlier resolution dated 23.11.1976 and, as such, a fresh resolution amending the earlier notification was issued under the authority of the Governor. The changes that were made in so far as relevant to the present case is concerned, inter alia, provided that a tutor having Post Graduate degree and who had worked as teacher for three years, but less than six years would be considered for promotion as Assistant Professor, whereas tutors who had Post Graduate degree and had teaching experience as such for more than six years were to be directly considered for promotion to the post of Associate Professor. This was apparently so done because large number of teaching doctors continued to work with Post Graduate degrees as tutors for a considerable period without being granted promotion and, as such, considering their teaching experience, they were sought to be given recognition and promotion.

5. I may note here that this is what is commonly referred to level jumping. This is so because a person would become Associate Professor without being made Assistant Professor and as would be discussed later was criticized and disapproved by this Court. Then comes the notification of resolution dated 29.01.1990 which provided for "Kal Awadhi", that is, specified period for special purposes. This notification, inter alia, provided that Assistant Professor, who had three years teaching experience, as such, would be considered for promotion to Associate Professor and Associate Professor having minimum four years teaching experience as such would be considered for promotion as Professor. Persons who have been Professors for minimum 10 years would be eligible for b