IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
Dr. Sourav Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State of J&K and Ors - Respondent
SWP No. 3328 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided on : 31-12-2018
Appointment - Dental Surgeon - [J&K Health Department Act, Section 164-HME of 2012] - The court discussed the eligibility conditions for the appointment of Registrar in Oral Surgery at the Dental College, including the requirement of two years of service in the Health Department and the need for permission from the Administrative Department. The court highlighted the importance of obtaining permission from the parent department and the relevance of the appointment tenure in considering the petitioner's candidature.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Dental Surgeon, sought quashing of orders and consideration for appointment as Registrar in Oral Surgery at the Dental College. The petitioner's application was not forwarded by the department, and he was not considered for the appointment due to lack of required experience and permission from the Administrative Department.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's candidature was not considered due to the non-forwarding of his application and lack of permission from the parent department. The court also noted that the appointment tenure had expired, making it impossible to grant relief at that stage.
Issues: Non-forwarding of petitioner's application, lack of permission from the parent department, and expiration of the appointment tenure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's candidature could not be considered without the required permission from the parent department and that it was too late to raise the issue of non-forwarding of the application due to the expiration of the appointment tenure.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed due to the lack of merit.
1. The petitioner, who is working as Dental Surgeon at PHC, Ajote Block Mandi, District, Poonch has filed the present writ petition, seeking quashing of the orders dated 25th October, 2014 and 25th October, 2015. Further prayer has been made for consideration of his candidature for appointment as Registrar in the discipline of Oral Surgery in Indira Gandhi Government Dental College/Hospital, Jammu (for short, ‘the Dental College’) w.e.f. 25th October, 2014.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner after completing his BDS Course had joined MDS Course. When the petitioner was undergoing his MDS Course, he was selected and appointed as Dental Surgeon on 21st May, 2012. He joined his duty as Dental Surgeon on 06th April, 2014. An advertisement was issued on 19th May, 2014, inviting applications from both inservice Dental Surgeons and other doctors for selection to the post of Registrar in the Dental College. This included two posts in the discipline of Oral Surgery. The advertisement provided the conditions of eligibility. An inservice candidate should have completed two years of service in the Health Department and further permission of the Administrative Department was required to participate in the selection process. The petitioner submitted his application to Chief Medical Officer concerned for onward submission to the authorities with no objection by the department. The same was forwarded by the Chief Medical Officer, Poonch to the Director Health Services, Jammu vide letter dated 24th May, 2014. While the process of selection was still pending, on account of discrepancy in the conditions laid down in the advertisement, fresh advertisement was issued on 14th June, 2014 with the same conditions. It was specifically provided therein that the candidates, who had applied earlier need not apply.
3. It was further submitted that the petitioner came to know about the appointment of respondent No. 8 through press on 28th August, 2014. Thereafter, he filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2009 (for short, “the RTI Act”), seeking information as to whether both the posts of Registrar in Oral Surgery have been filled up and further supply the petitioner copies of the experience certificates of the candidates appointed. The same was replied to vide letter dated 08th October, 2014, mentioning that Dr. Amina Samoon was engaged, but she did not join. The communication further provided that there was no need of experience of two years for inservice candidates as only one year experience was required. Thereafter, fresh advertisement was issued on 06th August, 2015, which included the post of Registrar in Oral Surgery. After the aforesaid advertisement was issued, no select list was published. The petitioner applied for information under the RTI Act. The information supplied was that respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were engaged pursuant to advertisement notice dated 06th August, 2015, however, the details of marks secured by them were not provided. It further transpired that respondent No. 3 had been engaged pursuant to advertisement notice dated 14th June, 2014. The information was contrary to what was supplied earlier when the petitioner was informed that only one candidate had been selected. The marks secured by the respondent No. 3 were 54, whereas the petitioner had secured 69.5 marks, hence was more meritorious.
4. He further argued that the only ground raised by the official respondents to deny consideration of the application filed by the petitioner was that his application was not forwarded by the department concerned to the Dental College and further, it was submitted that experience required for inservice candidates was Two years, which the petitioner was lacking. Application of Dr. Amina Samoon was forwarded by the department though she did not have two years’ experience, however, that condition was later on modified with requirement of only one year’s experience. It was submitted that had the
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.