1996 Supreme(All) 1326
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.A.Sharma, D.K.Seth
RAJIV KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Versus
VICE CHANCELLOR B H U VARANASI
Decided On : 22 November 1996
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34884 of 1994
AROOP BANERJI, R.NAQVI, V.K.UPADHYA,
A legal right means any legally enforcible right includes contractual right other than mere personal rights.
Headnote:
WRIT PETITION - APPOINTMENT OF MEDICAL OFFICER - SUBJECT TO STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS - DUTIES OF MEDICAL OFFICER PRESCRIBED IN OFFICE PROCEDURE MANUAL - NO LEGAL RIGHT TO CLAIM SPECIALISED SERVICE IN SURGICAL - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Master of Surgery, was appointed as Medical Officer (Surgery) in Sir Sunder Lal Hospital of Banaras Hindu University. He was asked to work as Medical Officer (Casuality) in the Casuality Department of the Hospital. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to post him in the department of Surgery or to any of its Units and to allow him to exploit his surgical skill.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was appointed subject to the Statutes, Rules and Regulation etc. The rules as provided in the office Manual has prescribed certain duties of the Medical Officers, as referred to in Para 11 herein-before. The petitioner seeks to enforce the right contrary to the said rule. The petitioner has not been able to prove any contract contrary to the said rules. The alleged pleading that the petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer (Surgery) for the purposes of performing specialised service in Surgical does not form a contract statutory enforcible as such.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner has a legal right to claim specialised service in surgical? 2. Whether the petitioner's appointment as Medical Officer (Surgery) was subject to the Statutes, Rules and Regulation etc.? 3. Whether the duties of Medical Officers are prescribed in the office Procedure Manual?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner has not been able to show any law under which he can claim alleged right he is seeking to claim here to term the same to be a legal right enforcible under law, according to the principles established through the ratio decided in the cases referred to above. 2. The court found that the petitioner was appointed subject to the Statutes, Rules and Regulation etc. 3. The court held that the rules as provided in the office Manual has prescribed certain duties of the Medical Officers, as referred to in Para 11 herein-before.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
In the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner, a Master of Surgery from Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, was appointed as Medical. Officer (Surgery) in Sir Sunder Lal Hospital of the said University through an appointment let ter dated 4/7th September, 1991 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition ). The petitioner joined the said permanent and substantive post in the said Hospital on 7. 9. 1991 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition ). The appointment of the petitioner was confirmed by letter dated 11. 8. 1993 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) with effect from 8. 9. 1992. The petitioner was asked to work as Medical Officer (Casuality) in the Casuality Department of the Hospital. Though the petitioner is specialist in Surgery but even after his con firmation the petitioner was compelled to serve in the Casuality department. The petitioners appointment in specialised sub ject could not be utilised in the Casuality Deptt. The petitioner had made successive representations on 23. 4. 1994 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition), 11. 5. 1994 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) and 31. 5. 1994 (An-nexure 7 to the writ petition) in vain. On these background the petitioner, has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to post the petitioner in the department of Surgery or to any of its Units and to allow the petitioner to exploit his surgical skill.
2. In the counter-affidavit the respon dent, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, has pleaded that in the advertisement dated 20. 5. 1990 (Annexure CA1) the recruitment was sought to be made in the post with designation of the Medical Officer. The ad vertisement never specified any designation as Medical Officer (Surgery ). Since the qualification of the Medical Officer recruited was one or the other of the dif ferent specialities as specified there in, the petitioner having one of such specialities were so indicated after the actual designa tion, his designation Medical Officer (Surgery) was indicated. But infact, the same did not connote any special meaning. According to the respondents there is no post of Medical Officer (Surgery) in S. S. Hospital ( here in after referred to as Hospi tal ). The said Hospital and the Institute of Medical Sciences are two different units having two different kind of establishment and management. The department of Surgery is a Teaching department under the Institute of Medical
Sciences (Institute for short ). The petitioner having been ap pointed in the Hospital he cannot claim his appointment in the Institute. The petitioner may apply for the appointment in the In stitute if occasion so arises. The work per formed by the petitioner in the Casuality department consists both of clinical as well as administrative work. The petitioner was not appointed as a specialist. The specialists are appointed in the Institute as Professor, Readers and Lecturers.
3. By filing supplementary counter-af fidavit the respondents has elaborated the contentions made in the counter-affidavit to the extent that the surgical operation of the patients lies with in the domain of Lec turers, Processors and Readers of the In stitute of Medical Sciences. Specialist sur-gial services are rendered only by the Lec turers, Professorsand Readers of the In stitute. The Hospital, as a matter of policy, has entrusted the surgical and other medical services provided in the Hospital to the Professors, Readers and Lecturers in the interest of the patients as it is felt that only persons with necessary expertise, knowledge and experience as verified by the Selection Committee, for the said posts should only handle the surgical, medical and other services of the indoor patients. The petitioner, if he so desires, he is free to face the Selection Committee for the selection of consultants teachers, who are entrusted with surgical work of the hospital. The Col lege of Medical Sciences, under the Univer sity, was established in the year 1960. In the year 1977 it was redesignated as Institut