SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(J&K) 352

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, J.
Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad S/o Late Abdul Salam Hakim – Appellant
Versus
SKIMS Soura, Srinagar, through Chairman Governing Body – Respondent
WP(C) No. 2749 of 2022, CM No.6956 and 927 of 2023
Decided on : 04-10-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. M.A. Qayoom, Advocate with Mr. Mian Rouf, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sajad Ashraf, Mr. Jehangir Iqbal Ganai, Ms. Mehnaz Rather, Ms. Asifa Padroo, Advocate

Selection processes must adhere to previously established criteria, and unilateral changes are impermissible once the process has commenced.

Headnote:(A) J&K Reservation Rules, 2005; Medical Council of India Norms - Legal obligation to follow the 70:30 ratio for faculty appointments in Clinical Pharmacology; Appellant challenged the rejection of his candidature against a post for Non-Medical Assistant Professor based on the lack of category-specific advertisement and contradictory orders of consideration. (Paras 50, 61, 86)

(B) Presumption of rights and expectations - The petitioner, as the only eligible Non-Medical candidate, has a vested interest in the appointment process amidst competing Medical candidate selections. The court stressed that once the selection process has commenced, changes to criteria cannot be unilaterally imposed. (Paras 72, 90)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, with extensive qualifications in Pharmacology, claimed a right to be appointed as Assistant Professor (Non-Medical) after being the sole candidate in a prior selection process. His claims were substantiated by several unfilled posts and advertising irregularities. (Paras 14, 60)

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the orders issued by the respondents were arbitrary and not compliant with prior legal obligations to fill the Non-Medical position according to established criteria, resulting in the quashing of the impugned advertisement and consideration order. (Paras 91, 92)

Issues: Whether the respondents had violated the legal obligation to fill vacancies in accordance with established norms and the implications of failing to properly advertise categories amid selection processes. (Paras 50, 77)

Ratio Decidendi: The respondents acted outside their legal authority by re-advertising a position that was constitutionally protected for Non-Medical candidates, thus violating the defendant's rights and the norms set down by governing bodies. Appeals to amend criteria post-selection were held impermissible by the court.

Result: The petition was allowed, orders quashed, and the case was directed to be reconsidered favoring the petitioner. (Para 91)

Table of Content
1. challenge to advertisement notice and appointment. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. petitioner highlights discrepancies in recruitment process. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 , 15 , 27 , 37)
3. claim based on ratio of medical/non-medical faculty. (Para 14 , 17 , 20 , 24)
4. petitioner seeks appointment against assistant professor post. (Para 18)
5. defendant's position regarding selection criteria and processes. (Para 22 , 30 , 42 , 46)
6. court analyzes obligations of respondents in hiring. (Para 49 , 51 , 54 , 60 , 66)
7. post advertisement obligations and hiring criteria established. (Para 63 , 72 , 76)
8. the court allows the writ due to procedural irregularities. (Para 90)
9. writ petition allowed; decision on appointment and criteria upheld. (Para 91 , 92 , 93)

JUDGMENT :

BRIEF FACTS:

1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner, in which he has called in question the impugned Advertisement Notice No. 02 of 2021 dated 17th April, 2021, besides called in question the order of Consideration bearing no. SIMS 130(P) of 2022 dated 30.07.2022 issued by Respondent No. 2. The petitioner has also sought a Writ in the nature of mandamus, seeking a direction against the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner against the post of Assistant Professor in Clinical Pharmacology, from amongst the Non-Medical Candidates by giving the benefit of such appointment from the date the same has been given to the Respondent No.3.

2. The instant petition came to be listed before this Court on 6th December 2022, in terms whereof this Court after feeling prima facie satisfied, restrained the official respondents from finalizing the selection to the post of Assistant Professor, Clinical Pharmacology.

3. Before indicating the grounds of challenge against impugned advertisement notice, it would be apt to refer to the brief factual background of the case, with a view to decide the controversy in question.

4. The petitioner has passed his M.Sc. Pharmacology from a recognized University and has obtained Ph.D. in Medical Pharmacology from a recognized University and pursuant thereto, the petitioner was appointed as Demonstrator in SKIMS Medical College, Bemina, Srinagar, on 8th May, 2003 and continued as such up to 26th July, 2007. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in Mahatma Gandhi Medical College, Jaipur on 18.10.2007 on substantive basis and he continued to work as Assistant Professor (Pharmacology) in the said college upto 17.10.2012. The petitioner was appointed as Associate Professor in the aforesaid college on 18.10.2012, on the basis of his Ph.D. Degree in Pharmacology. As per the stand of the petitioner, he was also appointed as Professor, Department of Pharmacology, on academic arrangement basis, at Government Medical College, Doda, where the petitioner was performing his duties as Professor and Head of Department, Pharmacology, at the time of filing of the writ petition.

5. As per the stand of the petitioner, in terms of Advertisement Notice No. 1 of 2012 dated 10th January, 2012, Respondent No. 2 invited applications for filling up various faculty positions of Professor and Assistant Professor, including four posts of Assistant Professor in Clinical Pharmacology, under Direct Recruitment at SKIMS, on regular/temporary basis. The further stand of the petitioner is that out of the four posts advertised in terms of the advertisement notice dated 10th January, 2012, the respondents filled up two posts of Assistant Professors in Clinical Pharmacology and two posts remained unfilled.

6. Further case of the petitioner is that while the process of filling the two posts was under consideration, Respondent No. 2 issued Government Order No. 74- SKIMS of 2013 dated 16th September, 2013, where under, the recruitment rules for filling up of the faculty positions in the Department of Clinical Pharmacology at SKIMS was notified,

                    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                    1
                    2
                    3
                    4
                    5
                    6
                    7
                    8
                    9
                    10
                    11
                    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                    supreme today icon
                    logo-black

                    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                    Please visit our Training & Support
                    Center or Contact Us for assistance

                    qr

                    Scan Me!

                    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                    whatsapp-icon Back to top