Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 538
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, A.K. CHAWLA, JJ.
Medical Council of India - Appellant
Versus
Sangeeta Sharma and Another - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10451 of 2017
Decided On : 29-04-2019
Vikas Singh, Adv., T. Singhdev, Adv., Puja Sarkar, Adv., Tarun Verma, Adv., Biakthansangi Das, Adv., Amandeep Kaur, Adv., Abhijit, Adv., Adit S Pujari, Adv., Vriti Anand, Adv., Surabhi Dhar, Adv., Kirtiman Singh, Adv., Waize Ali Noor, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the status of a deemed confirmed employee cannot be inferred solely based on the expiry of the probation period, and the termination of a probationer's services can be non-stigmatic and legal.
Headnote:
MCI - Termination of Services - MCI Act, 1956, Section 10A - The court discussed the appointment letter, probation period, and termination of services of the respondent. The court held that the respondent did not acquire the status of a deemed confirmed employee as the rules did not specify a maximum period of probation or confirm her services. The termination order was found to be non-stigmatic and legal. The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, Dr. Sangeeta Sharma, was terminated from the post of Secretary, MCI. She claimed that her termination was illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent did not acquire the status of a deemed confirmed employee and her termination was non-stigmatic and legal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent was a deemed confirmed employee and whether her termination was stigmatic in nature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent did not acquire the status of a deemed confirmed employee as the rules did not specify a maximum period of probation or confirm her services. The termination order was found to be non-stigmatic and legal.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
1. The Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as "MCI") has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in O.A. No.1256/ 2012 preferred by respondent 1- Sangeeta Sharma. The Tribunal has allowed the said Original Application and directed the petitioner to re- induct respondent- 1 as the Secretary, MCI within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
2. Respondent 1- Dr. Sangeeta Sharma was initially recruited as Junior Resident, Department of Pharmacology, in Maulana Azad Medical College, Delhi on 02.08.1987. She worked as Senior Resident in the same Department from 01.08.1991 to 06.01.1995, and thereafter, as Research Associate from 07.01.1995 to 14.11.1995. Respondent 1 was further appointed as Manager (Medical Services) in Panacea Biotech Ltd., New Delhi on 15.11.1995 and served there till 23.09.1996. She was, thereafter, recruited as Assistant Professor Neuropsychopharmacology in the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS), Delhi. She served in the said post from 24.09.1996 to 30.06.2001. She was promoted as the Associate Professor Neuropsychopharmacology in the same institution from 01.07.2001 to 31.10.2001. She was then promoted as Associate Professor Neuropsychopharmacology on 01.11.2002 where she served up till 2005. She was appointed as Additional Professor in IHBAS on 01.07.2005 and as the Medical Superintendent on 27.11.2008 in IHBAS. Thereafter, she came to be appointed as Professor & Head Neuropsychopharmacology on 12.10.2009 in IHBAS.
3. The post of Secretary, MCI had fallen vacant on account of the superannuation of the previous incumbent. An advertisement was issued in the newspapers on 13.10.2010 inviting applications from eligible candidates for being appointed to the post of Secretary, MCI. Considering herself to be eligible for the said post, respondent no. 1 submitted her application for appointment to the said post vide her application dated 27.10.2010.
4. On 09.11.2010, interviews for the post of Secretary, MCI were conducted in which, respondent 1 appeared along with 17 others. The applicant was found to be eligible and was, thus, issued letter of appointment dated 08.03.2011. The appointment letter, insofar as it is relevant, read as follows:
"1. You will be on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining the post. The probation period may be extended at the discretion of the appointing authority. During the probation period, the appointment will be liable to termination without assigning any reasons on one month's notice period and thereafter on three month's notice or pay with allowances in lieu thereof. Continuance in the service after the probation period is subject to satisfactory performance. For resignation you will be liable to give one month's notice during probation period and three month's notice thereafter or pay with allowances in lieu thereof. However, the council reserves the right not to accept the resignation, if the circumstances so warrant.
4. Your service in the Council will be subject to the Service Rules and Regulations, including the Conduct, Control and Appeal Rules, Standing Orders or any other such orders of the Council. You will be bound and governed by such rules as may be framed and enforced from time to time and shall not challenge these rules on any ground. Decision of the Competent Authority shall be final and binding." (emphasis supplied)
5. Respondent 1 was thereafter, relieved from IHBAS vide office order dated 24.03.2011, while retaining her lien to the post of Professor & Head of Department of Neuropsychopharmacology for one year. She joined as Secretary, MCI on 25.03.2011. However, vide its office order dated 30.03.2012, the MCI terminated the services of respondent 1 in terms of the aforementioned appointment letter.
6. Being aggrieved by this state of affa
