IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that eligibility for promotion must be assessed based on the specific provisions applicable to the petitioners, emphasizing the need to interpret service rules in a manner that upholds the rights of eligible candidates for promotion.

ORDER :

ARUN MONGA, J.

1. Grievance of the petitioners in the above titled two petitions, who are members of the teaching faculty at Government Medical College, Pali, Rajasthan arises out their non-consideration for the promotional post of Assistant Professor. They claim that despite their being fully eligible for the same, instead of considering them, undue advantage is being given to the direct recruits through fresh selection process. Thereby, not only petitioners have been denied their right to be considered against the promotional quota, but even otherwise unnecessary heart burn is caused by making them junior to the direct recruits.

2. The facts of the case are not disputed. In any case, succinct narrative thereof is contained in an order dated 07.09.2021 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court then presided over by Dinesh Mehta, J., who speaking for this Court observed as below :-

“1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the action of the Governing Body of the respondents, who are going to fill up the posts of Assistant Professor by direct recruitment pursuant to advertisements dated 29.7.2021 and 5.8.2021.

2. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners invited Court’s attention towards relevant provisions and pointed out that the respondents are required to fill up at least 50% of the posts by way of promotion, whereas they are going to fill up the posts by way of direct recruitment and thus, their rights will be seriously impaired if the subject recruitment is allowed to continue.

3. Learned counsel invited Court’s attention towards minimum qualification fixed by the norms of the Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MCI’) and submitted that as per the MCI norms, only one year’s teaching experience is required, which the petitioners are having.

4. Learned counsel argued that for the purpose of promotion, Rule 24 of the Employment Rules (Recruitment and other Conditions), 2017 for Rajasthan Medical Education Society, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2017) is applicable, according to which, the Medical Teachers Promotion Policy is required to be based on MCI norms. According to him, the petitioners are possessing requisite qualification, mentioned in Schedule-I.

5. Mr. Kailash Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State invited Court’s attention towards sub-rule (7) of Rule 25 of the Rules of 2017, which provides as under:

“(7). Senior Demonstrator – Senior Demonstrator shall be granted promotion to Assistant Professor after completion of 4 years of service and fulfilling the qualification for Assistant Professor as per MCI norms subject to vacancy of the post of assistant professor.“

6. With the aid of sub-rule (7) of Rule 25 of the Rules of 2017, learned counsel submitted that so far as promotion from the post of Senior Demonstrator to the post of Assistant Professor is concerned, a Senior Demonstrator is required to have at least 4 years’ experience in service and none of the petitioners have gained 4 years’ experience on the post of Senior Demonstrator and thus, they are not eligible for promotion.

7. A specific stand has been taken by the State that the State recruiting agency has applied its mind towards sub-rule (7) of Rule 25 of the Rules of 2017 and having found that none of the inservice Senior Demonstrators are eligible for promotion, instead of filling up the vacancies by way of promotion, they proceeded to go for direct recruitment and issued advertisement(s) for filling up the post by way of direct recruitment.

8. In relation to petitioners’ argument flowing from Rule 24 of the Rules of 2017, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that this is the minimum educational qualification or requirement, but in the face of requirement set by the respondents in the form of Rule 25(7) of the Rules of 2017 the requirement as per MCI Norms which is the minimum requirement, is of little avail to the petitioners.

9. Having heard le