Teaching experience acquired during supernumerary duty, beyond the tenure of a post, and while working in a different department can be counted towards eligibility for promotion if the actual teaching work was performed.

Having heard Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Government Pleader No. 7 on behalf of the State and Mr. Banwari Sharma appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4, in detail, we intend to dispose of this application at the admission stage itself.

2. In short, the grievance of the petitioner, in the present writ application is that though he possessed the requisite qualification as well as teaching experience, he was deprived of the promotions as Assistant Professor and then as Associate Professor and the last one as Professor in the E.N.T. Department of the Medical College whereas his juniors have been allowed to supersede him so much so that on 1.2.1991 the service of respondent no. 4, who is less qualified and possesses less total teaching experience, has been regularised as Associate Professor by the Government notification dated 1.2.1991, as contained in Annexure 1, without disposing of the representations of the petitioner made from time to time.

3. However, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, a copy of order dated 1.2.1991 rejecting the representations filed by the petitioner has been annexed as E without giving any reason for the same.

4. The petitioner has given a comparative chart of his qualification and the teaching experience vis-a vis that of respondent no. 4 at Annexure 13 to the amendment petition filed on his behalf on 11th March, 1992. The correctness of the same has not been disputed by the learned Government Pleader No. 7 as also by Mr. Banwari Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 to whom we, even before the hearing of this matter commenced, had asked as to whether respondent no. 4 would like to file any counter affidavit but Mr. Sharma categorically stated that the facts stated in the comparative chart are not in disputed and, accordingly, we proceeded to hear the matter in detail, so that the same may be disposed of at the admission stage itself.

5. The short question that has been raised on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioner, in view of the Government resolution, Contained in Memo No. 5935 (2) dated 7.9.1973 (Annexure 'C'), was not entitled to count the teaching experience in respect of supernumerary duty performed by him from 15.2.1971 to 15.12.1976 and from 16.12.1979 to 14.3.1980 when he worked in the Patna Medical College Hospital beyond the expiry of the so called tenure of three years. It was also contended that the petitioner is not entitled to count teaching experience from 8.5.1988 to 23.10.1988 when he worked as Medical Officer in the Preventive & Social Medicine Department of the Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna. However, learned Government Pleader No. 7 and also learned Counsel for respondent no. 4 have not disputed the fact that the petitioner has actually performed the teaching work in a teaching hospital right from 17.2.1971 till date.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in reply submitted that in view of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 509 (Dr. Asim Kumar Bose V. Union of India and others), the petitioner acquired the requisite teaching experience and was eligible and due for promotion as Assistant Professor with effect from 4.3.1976, as Associate Professor with effect from 19.1.1978 and as Professor in the E.N.T. Department on 18.2.1988. The petitioner's representations for due promotions have been arbitrarily rejected by order, as contained in Annexure E, which, according to the settled principle, is also bad in law as no reason has been assigned for the same. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents has relied on a Bench decision of this Court reported in 1990 BBCJ 45 : 1990 (1) PLJR 124. (Dr. Anil Kumar Sinha v. The State of Bihar and others) which had taken notice of the aforementioned Supreme Court decision and also the resolution of the Government dated 7.9.1973 and had upheld the validity of th