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

2024 Supreme(All) 1586

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, PRASHANT KUMAR, JJ.
Jitendra Singh Kushwaha – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Special Appeal No. 46 of 2024
Decided On : 02-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Awadh Behari Singh, Gaurav Pundir.
For the Respondents: Kunal Shah, Sanjay Kumar Om.

IMPORTANT POINT
Experience as an Additional Professor is equivalent to that of a Professor for appointment as Principal in a Medical College, as affirmed by MCI and NMC regulations.

Headnote:

(A) Uttar Pradesh State Medical College Teachers' Service Rules, 1990 - Regulations, 1998 - Equivalence of posts - The learned Single Judge held that experience as an Additional Professor is equivalent to that of a Professor for the post of Principal in a Medical College, as clarified by the MCI and NMC. The State Government's orders affirming this equivalence were deemed clarificatory and did not alter the recruitment rules. (Paras 11, 20, 56)

(B) Recruitment - Essential qualifications - The court emphasized that the qualifications for the posts of Professor and Additional Professor are identical, and the experience gained in either role should be considered for appointment as Principal. (Paras 30, 51)

Facts of the case:

The appeal arose from a common judgment regarding the eligibility of Dr. Sheo Kumar for the post of Principal based on his experience as an Additional Professor, which was contested by Dr. Jitendra Singh Kushwaha. The learned Single Judge ruled in favor of Dr. Sheo Kumar, affirming the equivalence of the two posts.

Findings of Court:

The court upheld the equivalence of experience as Additional Professor and Professor, rejecting the appellant's arguments against this interpretation.

Issues: The main issues included whether the experience as an Additional Professor could be counted as equivalent to that of a Professor and whether the rules were changed after the selection process began.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the equivalence of the posts is established by the MCI and NMC, and the State Government's clarifications were consistent with existing regulations.

Result: The appeal was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Awadh Behari Singh, learned counsel for the Appellant/respondent No. 5, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kunal Shah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5/petitioner, Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Sayujya Singh, Advocate appearing along with Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-National Medical Commission.

2. The present intra court appeal is directed against the impugned common Judgment and order dated 22.12.2023 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge passed in Writ (A) No. 17887 of 2022, (Dr. Sheo Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others), Writ (A) No. 11798 of 2021, (Dr. Jitendra Singh Kushwaha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) and Writ (A) No. 4236 of 2022 (Sheo Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others).

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

3. Facts in nutshell essential for disposal of the instant appeal are noted herein-below:

Petitions filed by the respondent No. 5/Petitioner

Petition filed by the Appellant/respondent No. 5

1. Writ (A) No. 17887 of 2022 was filed by Dr. Sheo Kumar, whose selection was canceled by the Commission [The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission] vide its order dated 10.08.2022.

Writ (A) No. 11798 of 2021 was filed by Dr. Jitendra Singh Kushwaha, challenging the selection of Dr. Sheo Kumar as Principal (Allopathy) in the Department of Medical Education on the ground that Dr. Sheo Kumar did not possess the requisite experience under the relevant Recruitment Rules.

2. When the Commission failed to process the appointment despite the State Government’s clarification and failed to proceed with the appointment of Dr. Sheo Kumar-the petitioner/respondent No. 5, he filed Writ (A) No. 4236 of 2022 (Sheo Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others), praying for a mandamus to direct the Respondent Commission to process his candidature.

4. The controversy involved in the aforementioned petitions was decided by the learned Single Judge with a common judgment and order dated 22.12.2023. The short question before the learned Single Judge was whether experience as an Additional Professor in a Medical College would also count as experience of a Professor, which a candidate is required to possess to become Principal of a Medical College under the relevant Rules. The Commission had invited applications for the solitary post of Principal (Allopathy) in the Department of Medical Education through an advertisement dated 22.12.2020. The “Essential Qualification” for the said post required a candidate to have a total teaching experience of at least 10 years as a Professor/Associate Professor/Reader in a Medical College/Institution recognized by the MCI [The Medical Council of India] of which at least 5 years should be as a Professor in a department. As the appellant/respondent No. 5 raised questions about the alleged experience of the respondent No. 5/petitioner-Dr. Sheo Kumar, his experience is reproduced below for ready reference:

    Experience of the Petitioner/Respondent No. 5:

(i) Associate Professor: 3 years

(ii) Additional Professor: 4 years

(iii) Professor: 3 years 6 months 22 days

(iv) Total cumulative experience: 10 years, 6 months, 22 days

(v) Experience as Professor and Additional Professor: 7 years, 6 months, 22 days

5. In response to the advertisement, the Commission shortlisted the candidates and called them for an interview. During the interview, the Respondent No. 5/Petitioner was asked by the Commission to submit an undertaking to the effect that within 30 days he would produce: (i) certified copies of the experience certificate demonstrating that he had 10 years of teaching experience, including 5 years as a Professor, and (ii) guidelines from the Medical Council of India treating both the posts of Professor and Additional Professor as equivalent. In response, the Respondent No. 5/Petitioner complied with th

                          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