The Medical Council of India regulations require teachers in medical colleges to possess a recognized postgraduate qualification in the respective subject, and that the institution in question did not meet this requirement.

Initially, this writ application was filed for quashing the seniority list dated 28.5.1995, contained in Annexure 7/A. whereby respondent nos. 5 and 6 were shown senior to the petitioner in the rank of Associate Professors. But during the pendency of this writ application, vide a notification dated 20.6.1994, contained in Annexure 7/D respondent no. 5 was promoted as Professor Incharge, General Medicine Department, P.M.C.H. Therefore, a prayer was also made for quashing of that notification.

2. The petitioner claims seniority over respondents 5 and 6 on basis of his placement in Annexure 2 dated 14.11.1979, whereby he and others were promoted as Associate Professors with effect from the date of joining. But the petitioner did not join at that time whereas respondent nos. 5 and 6 joined immediately in terms of the notification. At the time of promotion, in the notification, admittedly the petitioner was shown senior to respondent nos. 5 and 6. But the promotion to the ranks of Asst. Professor was to be made effective from the date of joining.

3. Admittedly the petitioner did not join 'his place of posting till 29.11.1980, but on the other hand, respondent nos. 5 and 6 joined their posts then and there. Therefore in view of terms and conditions of their promotion, 'they became senior to the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner joined at Patna subsequently on 29.10.1980 therefore, he was not entitled to count the period between 14.11.1979 to 29.10.1980 for fixation of seniority.

4. Thus in substance, the petitioner has claimed retrospective promotion on the post of Associate Professor. But in my view, since .the petitioner did not join the place of posting as assigned under Annexure 2 and other respondents joined much earlier to him, he cannot be allowed to claim retrospective promotion. If the petitioner did not join at that stage, nobody can be blamed for that. That apart, a bare reference to the order dated. 11.8.1994, passed in this case, would indicate that a Bench of this Court after hearing the parties has virtually closed this issue, holding that retrospective promotion was not permissible in such cases.

5. Therefore, if the petitioner is allowed promotion retrospectively, with effect from the date of Annexure 2, i.e. 14.11.1979, it will tantamount to restore his seniority over respondent nos. 5 and 6. If as per the terms and conditions of promotion enumerated in Annexure 2, the petitioner failed to join at Darbhanga and preferred to continue at Patna, at his risk, how can he be allowed at this stage to claim seniority over respondent nos. 5 and 6, who had joined much before his joining.

6. The other grievance of the petitioner is that M.D. Degree of respondent no. 5 contained in Annexure Y, purported to have been issued by the Magadh University is forged and fabricated. A bare reference to the copy of Degree, it would appear that Shri Chintu Naik, who has signed, was not the Vice-Chancellor at the relevant time. In fact, there is no signature of the Vice Chancellor who was holding the post in the year 1975 at the time when Degree was granted. A reference was also made to a letter of the Controller of Examinations, Magadh University dated 17.1.1995, Annexure 14, to show that there was no. provision in any of the Medical Colleges under Magadh University to impart education in Post Graduate standard, hence, there was no question issuing such a degree.

7. Having heard the parties with respect to the aforesaid grievance, I directed learned counsel for the University to produce the relevant records and also file affidavit so as to verify the genuineness of the grievances. Learned counsel for the University accordingly produced relevant records in presence of advocates of all the parties and also filed a counter affidavit accepting therein that such degree was granted to the petitioner. On perusal of the counter affidavit of the respondent University and the relevant records, there appears no doubt that the copy of the Degree was