The promotion process within educational institutions must adhere strictly to stipulated recruitment rules to maintain fairness between direct recruits and promotees.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:-

i) That appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued and the impugned order dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure P-14) may very kindly be quashed and set aside, by further directing the respondents to implement their previous decision which was lawfully taken after due deliberation at highest level and which is dated 05.12.2017, in the interest of law and justice.

ii. That appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued directing respondents to hold a review DPC by reviewing the earlier DPC dated 18.02.2016 strictly in consonance with Annexure P-8 dated 05.12.2017 and to consider the candidates who were eligible for the post of Assistant Professor Pathology as on 06.10.2017, by further directing to promote the person strictly in accordance with Annexure P-8, in the interest of law and justice.

iii). That appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor Pathology on and with effect from 06.10.2017 against the post of GDO with all consequential benefits of pay, arrear, seniority etc., in the interest of law and justice

iv) That appropriate writ order and direction may very kindly be issued and the DPC conducted on 18th February 2016, whereby, respondent No. 4 was promoted to the post of Assistant professor Pathology in Dr. RPGMC Tanda may very kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of law and justice.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved against the promotion granted to respondent No. 4, in February, 2016, on the post of Assistant Professor (Pathology) in Dr. Rajender Prasad Government Medical College, Tanda (for short ‘RPGMC Tanda’).

3. Petitioner and respondent No. 4 both belonged to GDO cadre of State Health Services. Petitioner was appointed as GDO in June, 2000 and respondent No. 4 was appointed as regular GDO in the year 2007. Thus, the petitioner was senior to respondent No. 4 in the said cadre.

4. Both petitioner and respondent No. 4 had done their Post Graduation in Pathology.

5. In November 2012, petitioner and respondent No. 4 joined three-years Senior Residency Course in RPGMC, Tanda. The course was to complete in November, 2015. Respondent No. 4 completed the course in time but the petitioner could complete the same in June 2016 for the reason that she had to undergo maternity and other medical leave for six months during the period of the course.

6. As per Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Pathology in RPGMC Tanda (for short, “the Rules”), 50% posts were to be filled by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from the cadre of GDOs possessing the PG degree with three years teaching experience.

7. The case as set up by the petitioner is that in January, 2016 a post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Pathology in RPGMC, Tanda, had fallen vacant and as per roster, the same was to be filled up by direct recruitment. It is alleged that the respondents No. 1 to 3, in violation of the rules, initiated the process for filling up the vacant post of Assistant Professor (Pathology) by the mode of promotion and resultantly promoted respondent No. 4. The petitioner was not found eligible on account of delay in completion of her Senior Residency Course.

8. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is that by wrongly promoting respondent No. 4 against vacancy meant for direct recruitment, the entire career of the petitioner has been ruined. Petitioner has explained that in case the vacancy was filled by direct recruitment in January, 2016, the