219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.01.2025 PT. B.D. SHARMA, UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, ROHTAK AND OTHERS . . . . Appellants Vs.

DR. DHARA BALLABH DHAULAKHANDI . . . . Respondent ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA ****

Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Ojas Bansal, Advoate Mr. Tejas Bansal, Advocate Mr. Nissim Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Varun Veer Chauhan, Advocate For the respondent.

Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

****

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1. This is an appeal preferred by the University- PT. B.D. Sharma, University of Health Sciences, Rohtak assailing the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent/writ petitioner was allowed; the respondents (therein) were directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner as per Rules for promotion to the post of Senior Professor;

and the exercise was directed to be done within a period of two months, holding the Haryana Medical Education Service (Amendment) Rules, 2007 (‘Rules of 2007’) to be applicable for the post of Professor in the Department of Biotechnology and Molecular Medicine, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak.

2. The case set up by the petitioner before the Single Judge was that he was appointed as a lecturer on contract basis on 22.09.2006 and continued up to 24.01.2007, whereafter he was appointed as Assistant Professor on contract basis from time to time, and was appointed on regular basis on 28.01.2009 and continued as Assistant Professor up to 28.01.2013, and was re-designated/promoted as Associate Professor with effect from 29.01.2013, in the Department of Biotechnology and Molecular Medicine.

3. He has further prayed in his petition to set aside the order, whereby his claim for promotion as Senior Professor and a direction to the respondents to promote him as Senior Professor with effect from

29.01.2017 along with all consequential benefits has been ignored.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition before this Court for seeking consideration of his case for promotion, and this Court had disposed of the writ petition with directions to the respondents therein to decide his representation wherein he has claimed his promotion. The said directions were resulted in passing of a speaking order dated

09.10.2017 wherein the Dean, PGIMS, Rohtak stated that the qualifications and experience required for re- designation/promotion/appointment to the post of Professor and Senior Professor in the Department of Biotechnology and Molecular Medicine, have not been approved by the Government as yet, and the Rules which have been approved by the Government, require the petitioner’s case to be considered afresh for the post of Associate Professor. It has been stated that the re-designation of the petitioner as Associate Professor has not been done in accordance with the Rules which had been approved by the State Government.

5. The Single Judge has, after taking into consideration the contentions, proceeded to observe that as per Rule 9(1)(e) of the Haryana Medical Education Service (Amendment) Rules, 2007, method of recruitment on the post of Senior Professor is 75% by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment, and the qualifications have been laid down in the Schedule.

6. It has been stated that the petitioner acquired four years of service in speciality as Associate Professor in 2017, and was thus eligible for promotion.

7. The learned Single Judge has also noticed clause 7 of the appointment letter which states that the services of the petitioner would be governed by Haryana Medical Education Service Rules, 1988/Haryana Medical Education Service (Amendment) Rules, 2007 as amended from time to time. The contents of the decision of 04.06.2008 were also noticed which