IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.
DR. PAWAN KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20694 of 2018
Decided On : 05-03-2021
Service Law – Appointment – Post of Assistant Professor in IGIMS – Respondent No.4, who should have been given 46 marks, has illegally been appointed by selection committee and name of petitioner is shown in waiting list whereas petitioner should have been appointed as he got more marks than respondent No. 3 and 4 – Two vacancies are available, therefore, respondent No.3 has rightly been appointed but appointment of respondent No.4 cannot be sustained as he got only 46 marks much less than marks obtained by petitioner and his appointment is fit to be set aside – Appointment of respondent No.4 set aside – Respondent Nos.1 and 2 directed to consider case of petitioner for appointment on post of Assistant Professor (Orthopaedic), IGIMS, Patna in accordance with law. (Paras 28 to 31)
JUDGMENT :
Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.
1. Heard Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Shahi, the learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, the learned counsel, for the respondent No. 1 and 2, Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Rai, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, and Mr. Ankit Katriar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.
2. The petitioner by filing this writ petition seeks quashing of the order of appointment of respondent No. 3 and 4 dated 19.09.2018 issued under the signature of Director, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the IGIMS). The petitioner further prays for issuance of writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in pursuance to the advertisement No. 04/Faculty/IGIMS/Estt./2018 and to pass such other order/orders, direction/ directions as this court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The facts bereft of unnecessary details but relevant for this case are that the petitioner did his MBBS from Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna in the year 2006. He also did his MS, Orthopedic from PMCH in the year 2011. The petitioner did his Senior Residency from IGIMS for the period 30th January, 2013 to 29th July, 2016. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Orthopedic) vide advertisement No. 04/Adhoc- Faculty appointment/IGIMS/Estt./2017 and he being eligible for the post was appointed as Assistant Professor, Orthopedic on adhoc basis. An advertisement No. 04/Faculty/ IGIMS/Estt./2018 was issued for appointment on Faculty posts for various departments in IGIMS. The petitioner also applied for appointment on the post. The petitioner was called for interview on 03.07.2018 but when result was published vide memo No. 3956/Admn dated 19.09.2018 the petitioner found his name in the waiting list. Respondent No. 3 and 4 were selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor, regular, in Orthopedic department. The petitioner, being dissatisfied and aggrieved with the appointment of respondent No. 3 and 4 on the ground that they have got lesser qualification and lesser experience as compared to the petitioner but they were appointed filed this writ petition.
4. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that petitioner was earlier appointed as Assistant Professor (Orthopedic) on adhoc basis after following the appointment procedure and he discharged his duties as Assistant Professor (Orthopedic) from 31.07.2017 to 30.04.2018. Four posts of Assistant Professors (Orthopedic) were again advertised (Annexure-P/4) and out of four posts three posts were for general category (unreserved) and one post was reserved for SC. It is submitted that according to advertisement (Annexure-P/4) the essential qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Orthopedic) is that a candidate must have MBBS/MS/MD degree in subject concerned or an equivalent degree of recognized institution by the MCI as also three years teaching and/or research experience in recognized institution. It is further submitted that a committee was constituted for interviewing the candidates on the basis of their qualification.
5. The learned senior counsel further submits that petitioner got MBBS and MS degree in orthopedic from PMCH and also got four years teaching experience as Senior Residency and also Assistant Professor (Orthopedic) for the post on which substantive appointment to be made. The petitioner published nine journals out of which six are indexed journals and the petitioner is first author in two indexed journals and second author in other two indexed journals whereas in three non-indexed journals he is first author in two journals. When the merit list was
D. Saroj Kumari v. R. Helen Thikaka
Dr. Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh
Manish Kumar Sahi v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576
Madan Lal v. State of Jharkhand AIR 1995 SC 1088
Ramesh Chandra Sah & Ors v. Anil Joshi & Ors (2013) 11 SCC 309
University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govinda Rao & Anr. AIR 1965 SC 491
The Tribunals and Courts have limited jurisdiction under judicial review to interfere with the merit and selection lists prepared by expert bodies unless there is clear evidence of mala fide, bias, o....
Interview-only selection valid for senior academic posts if compliant with per-vacancy screening rules; uniform expert evaluation indicates consensus, not bias.
Grant of marks under head ‘Publications’ becomes vital because, even if she is to be granted full marks for ‘UGC Scholarship’ in absence of at least five more marks, she will not be able to obtain an....
Employment and Service matter - Appointment as an Associate Professor in the School of Social Sciences of the Mahatma Gandhi University - Selection committee – Qualiification - Absence of post doctor....
The court upheld the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Professor, confirming compliance with UGC eligibility criteria and validating the selection process conducted by the university.
The court upheld the Selection Committee's decision insisting that qualifications for academic posts must be evaluated by experts, and judicial interference is warranted only under extreme circumstan....
Educational qualifications are essential for ensuring the quality of education and should not be overridden by teaching experience alone.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.