The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to exhaust all remedies available under the relevant service rules before approaching the Tribunal, as mandated by Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral)

1. The contesting party is R-3 and R-4. Counsel as above appears for said respondents on advance copy being served.

2. Since the matter is urgent and all the pleadings before the Central Administrative Tribunal have been filed along with the writ petition we have heard learned counsel for the parties for a final disposal of the writ petition.

3. The petitioner is a graduate in medical science and has a specialization in the field of ‘Obetetrics and Gynecology’. Through an open competition, under the aegis of UPSC, the petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer with post graduate specialization in ‘Obetetrics and Gynecology’ under the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi and was posted at Kasturba Hospital in June, 1995.

4. It is the claim of the petitioner that since inception of her service she had taught post graduate students and DNB trainees in the specialized discipline of ‘Obetetrics and Gynecology’. She relied upon certificates issued in said regards from time to time. Petitioner also claims to be possessing a certificate regarding her entitlement to teach post graduate students in the University of Delhi and DNB trainees of National Board of Education.

5. It is the claim of the petitioner that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was participating as a unit of Central Health Services till it decided to open its own medical college and as per methodology adopted under the Central Health Services there are 4 sub-cadres namely GDMO, Teaching and Non-teaching specialists and Public Health. It is further the case of the petitioner that Medical Officers are equated as specialists and teaching sub-cadre, and the post is treated as equivalent to an Associate Professor. It is further the case of the petitioner that for purposes of promotion to the post of professor 18 years experience is necessary.

6. With reference to the Medical Council of India Act, pleadings have been made by the petitioner, effect whereof is the resultant claim that the petitioner would be entitled to be treated as an Associate Professor and upon completion of 18 years service as a Professor.

7. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner laid a challenge to a notice inviting applications by the midnight of December 31, 2012 by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation.

8. Now, with the trifurcation of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, three corporations falling in Delhi, one of which is the North Delhi Municipal Corporation.

9. The advertisement in question informs that North Delhi Municipal Corporation is in the process of establishing a new medical college at Hindu Rao Hospital for the academic year 2013-2014. Posts proposed to be filled up on contract basis initially for one year, extendable by another year based on performance, were notified to be filled up and we find that at serial No.18 are posts in the department of ‘Obetetrics and Gynecology’. One post each for Professor and Associate Professor and two posts of Assistant Professors are proposed to be filled up.

10. Marching before the Tribunal, the petitioner laid a claim as afore-noted, effect whereof if accepted would be that the petitioner would have to be treated as a Professor as of today and as an Associate Professor when she approached the Tribunal since she had already worked and had, as claimed by her, a teaching experience of 17 years. As of today, the petitioner has as per pleadings, a teaching experience of 18 years.

11. Before the Tribunal the petitioner was litigating with reference to the post of Associate Professor.

12. The Original Application filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the Tribunal by an order dated January 08, 2013 recording that after making some submissions counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the Original Application with liberty to avail such remedy as is available under law. Seeking review of the order and praying that the same be recalled and Original Application be heard on merits, RA No.23/201