Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 244 (GAU)

Mala Chaliha v. State of Assam

2003-06-04

P.G.AGARWAL

body2003
JUDGMENT P.G Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Miss. B. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3, Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Counsel for the Assam Public Service Commission, and Miss. P.L. Singh, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. 2. The Petitioner, Smti. Mala Chaliha, joined the Regional College of Nursing as Tutor in the year 1983 and thereafter she passed her M.Sc. final examination in the year 1993. It is submitted that during pendency of the writ petition the Petitioner has obtained the degree of Ph.D. under the Gauhati University in the subject Psychology. 3. In the year 1996, the Petitioner participated in a selection process for the post of Lecturer in Psychiatry and feeling aggrieved approached this Court in this writ petition. The selection was made by the Assam Public Service Commission and the Respondent No. 3, Meenaxi Mahanta was selected and she was appointed in the year 1997 and since then her services have been regularised. The writ petition was filed in the year 1997 and in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, Mr. Konwar was fair enough to submit that at this stage the Petitioner is not challenging the selection or appointment of Respondent No. 3 but prayed that some relief may be given to the Petitioner as she has been working in the said post for the last 20 years and there seems to be no promotional prospects. Learned Counsel has referred to the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary, Home(Police) Department, Government of Bihar, AIR 1988 SC 1033 , the Supreme Court has pointed out that reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every, wing of the Public Service, because that generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to growth for Raghunath Prasad Singh Vs Secretary Home(Police) Department, Government of Bihar, AIR 1988 SC 1033 , the Supreme Court has pointed out that reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of the Public Service, because that generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to growth for achieving excellence in service. It has also been pointed out that in absence of promotional prospect the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. In Dr Ms. It has also been pointed out that in absence of promotional prospect the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. In Dr Ms. O.Z. Hussain -Vs- Union of India 1990 (Supp.) SCC 688, the Supreme Court has observed that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the Public Service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. 4. There is no dispute at the Bar that the Petitioner is serving for the last 20 years and no promotion was provided to her. Learned Counsel has also filed a copy of the letter dated 3.10.2002 issued by the Principal, Regional College of Nursing, Guwahati recommending the case of the Petitioner and Ors. for upgradation as they are stagnated in the same post for the last 20 years. It has also been stated that it will not incur any additional expenditure since they have all crossed the initial pay scales meant for the B.Sc. Nursing Degree holder Lecturer. The recommendation of the Principal was forwarded to the Govt. of Assam by the Director of Medical Education, Assam vide the letter dated 25th October, 2002. Considering the direction and observation of the Apex Court in the two cases, as stated above, and the recommendations of the Principal of the Regional College of Nursing and the Director of Medical Education, Assam, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction to the Govt. of Assam in the Health & Family Welfare Department to take a conscious decision in the matter so that the Petitioner and other similarly situated persons are not forced to suffer due to, stagnation in the same post for the last 20 years. The State Govt. may consider the requisite qualification of the persons concerned and take a decision in the matter within a period of 3 months for the date on which a copy of this order is produced before them by the Petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Writ petition disposed of.