Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 290 (MP)

Deshraj Jain v. State of M. P.

2005-02-24

A.K.TIWARI, S.L.KOCHAR

body2005
ORDER Kochar, J.--1. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India aims at quashing of the common order (Annexure P-6) dated 11.1.2002 passed by the learned M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Inqore in OA No. 2048/2000 [Dr. Yogendra Narain Saxena v. State and others] and OA No. 1823/2000 [Dr. Subhash Garg v. State of M.P. and others] thereby allowing the applications with direction that the names of the respondent No. 3 herein Dr. Subhash Garg and No. 4 Dr. Saxena (since retired) be considered for promotion on the post of Professor. 2. A pithy description of the events for deciding this petition are stated thus : The petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer in Prosthodontics in the Government College of Dentistry (through Public Service Commission) in the year 1989. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor in the same subject in the same college in 1994 and also was further promoted to the post of Professor in Prosthodontics by order dated 25.11.2000. The respondent No.3 Dr. Subhash Gargjoined as Lecturer in the College of Dentistry at Indore on 30.6.1982. He was promoted as Reader in Periodontia with effect from 16.12.1992 in pursuance of the order dated 5.9.1995 passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in OA No. 213/1995 and affirmed by the apex Court on 15.10.1999 in Civil Appeals No. 12906 and 12907/1996. 3. The respondent No.3 Dr. Subhash Garg and Dr. Saxena (since retired) were denied further promotion to the post of Professor. Therefore, both had filed OA No. 1823/2000 and OA No. 2048/2000, respectively, against the respondents No.1 and 2. The respondent No. 3 had claimed promotion with retrospective effect which could have placed him above the petitioner Dr. Deshraj Jain in the Seniority List of Professors. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for and was allowed intervention and was impleaded as respondent No. 5 in OA No. 1823/2000. 4. Learned Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 11.1.2002 (Annexure P-6) and directed the concerned authority to consider respondent No. 3 Dr. Subhash Garg for promotion to the post of Professor and to pass necessary orders if he is found fit for promotion. There is no direction regarding giving him the seniority above the present petitioner Dr. Deshraj Jain. The learned Tribunal has also passed the order in favour of Dr. Subhash Garg for promotion to the post of Professor and to pass necessary orders if he is found fit for promotion. There is no direction regarding giving him the seniority above the present petitioner Dr. Deshraj Jain. The learned Tribunal has also passed the order in favour of Dr. Saxena - respondent No.4 herein, but since he has retired during pendency of this petition, against him the petition is not pressed and his case is also not pleaded by his Advocate. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order, has preferred this petition before this High Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the entire record carefully. 6. Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs. M. Chaphekar appearing for the petitioner Dr. Deshraj Jain assailed the decision of the Tribunal inter alia on the ground that the direction issued in favour of respondent No. 3 Dr. Garg by the impugned order is contrary to the M.P. Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987 (for brevity hereinafter referred as the 'Rules'), by which the services of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 are regulated. Rule 6 of the Rules provides for method of Recruitment and rule 6(1) (b) of the Rules provides recruitment by promotion of the members of the service. Rule 6 read with Schedule II says that all the posts of lecturers would be filled up by direct recruitment whereas all other posts of Readers, Professors and Principal could be filled up by promotion under rule 6(1) (b) of the Rules. He further submitted that according to Schedule IV it is crystal clear that the promotion to the post of Reader has to be made from the post of Lecturer and the post of Professor has to be made from the post of Reader. A Lecturer in Prosthetics can be promoted as Reader in Prosthetics. A Lecturer in Periodontics can be promoted as Reader in Periodontics. A Lecturer in Oral Diagnosis can be promoted as Reader in Oral Diagnosis. Likewise, the post of Professor could be filled up by promoting Readers subjectwise. In the year 2000, there were vacancies of the posts of Professors in four subjects. But, there was no post of Professor in either Diagnosis or Periodontia. A Lecturer in Oral Diagnosis can be promoted as Reader in Oral Diagnosis. Likewise, the post of Professor could be filled up by promoting Readers subjectwise. In the year 2000, there were vacancies of the posts of Professors in four subjects. But, there was no post of Professor in either Diagnosis or Periodontia. The respondent No. 3 Dr.Garg was Reader in Periodontia and Schedule IV prescribes five posts of Professor, i.e., (1) Pedodontia, (2) Operative, (3) Oral Pathology, (4) Prosthetics and (5) Oral surgery. There is no post for promotion of a Reader as Professor in Periodontia subject. Therefore, the respondent No.3 Dr. Garg is not entitled for promotion and the learned Tribunal bas issued direction contrary to the rule 6 (ibid). 7. It has also been contended that the apex Court in SLPs No.12908/96, 12909/96 and 12910/96, when promotion from the post of Lecturer to Readers were considered, has categorically upheld the validity of Rules and has described that the Government can issue executive instructions in the matter of promotion only in the absence of provision in Rules and such Executive Instructions should also not be contrary to the statutory rules. The copy of the order rendered by the Supreme Court has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure P-3 and the learned counsel has also read over the said order• during the course of arguments. In sum and substance, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal has illegally issued the order in favour of the respondent No. 3 Dr. Garg to consider him for promotion to the post of Professor though there is no post prescribed in Schedule IV of the Rules in the subject of Periodontia for the Reader to be promoted as Professor. 8. Learned counsel has also submitted that respondent No.3 Dr. Subhash Garg herein filed OA No. 213/95 before the Tribunal for consideration of case by the State Government/DPC for his promotion to the post of Reader and while deciding the said OA vide order dated 5.9.1995, the Tribunal issued direction to the State Government/DPC to consider the case of respondent No. 3 Dr. Garg for promotion to the post of Reader and if found eligible, he be given his due seniority. Against this order, Dr. Garg for promotion to the post of Reader and if found eligible, he be given his due seniority. Against this order, Dr. (Mrs.) Sandhya Jain - respondent No.3 therein filed petition before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by its judgment in Civil Appeals No. 12908/96, 12909/96, 12910/96 considered the Rules [reported in 2001(2) JLJ 107 (SC)]. Supreme Court judgment (Annexure P-6) is indicating in unequivocal terms that the promotion from the post of Reader to Professor is to be considered subjectwise. The judgment passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 213/95 dated 5.9.1995 by Qureshi, J. stands merged in the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned Civil Appeals decided on 15.10.1999. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Tribunal (Justice Qureshi) in OA No. 213/95 cannot be looked into for the purpose of resolving the controversy. 9. Learned counsel has also heavily relied on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh [ (1995) 1 SCC 745 Para 8], wherein it has been held that "The order in favour of the other persons might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the other persons is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order'. (Emphasis supplied). 10. Learned counsel has highlighted this proposition because of the fact that there are several instances where appointments to teaching post in the College of Dentistry, Indore, have been made by the State Government either without specification of speciality or/subjectwise or specifying a speciality not prescribed in the Rules. These appointments which have been relied upon by the respondent No.3 Dr. Garg are as under: 1. 16.9.1988 Professor L.D. Gupta A/5 Page 223 Professor H.C. Neema Paper Book Professor L.A. Saifet: (Appointed without specifying speciality) 2. 4.7.2000 Professor Dr. S.V. Dhodapkar A/6 Page 224 (In a specially-Periodonties Paper Book -not provided) 3. 4.9.2000 Dr. Smt. Sandhya Jain A/6 Page 224 w/o Prof. Dr. Garg are as under: 1. 16.9.1988 Professor L.D. Gupta A/5 Page 223 Professor H.C. Neema Paper Book Professor L.A. Saifet: (Appointed without specifying speciality) 2. 4.7.2000 Professor Dr. S.V. Dhodapkar A/6 Page 224 (In a specially-Periodonties Paper Book -not provided) 3. 4.9.2000 Dr. Smt. Sandhya Jain A/6 Page 224 w/o Prof. Dr. Deshraj Jain Paper Book (Petitioner) (Reader in Orthodonties-not provided in Schedule VI) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the abovementioned appointments without subjectwise on the post of Professor were contrary to the Rules. Therefore, the same could not be made basis as a precedent for consideration of the case of respondent No. 3 Dr. Garg. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 State and No.2 Director, Medical Education, has supported the impugned order (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Tribunal and in para 6 of the reply at page 106 of the Paper Book, it has been stated that the respondents No. 1 and 2 have decided to comply with the order in view of the interpretation of Rules made earlier in OA No. 213/95 and confinned by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Learned senior counsel Shri B.L. Pavecha, appearing for respondents No.3 and 4, has submitted emphatically that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order of the Tribunal (Annexure P-6) because the Tribunal has not issued any order adversely affecting the promotion and seniority of the petitioner Dr. Deshraj Jain. The petition is premature and filed in anticipation apprehending that the respondent No.3 Dr. Garg, after getting promotion on the post of Professor, may claim seniority over the petitioner. He has also submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal can be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and "supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to seeing that an inferior Court or the Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and not to go to correct an error apparent on the face of record, much less an error of law." In exercise of the supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not Act as an appellate Court or the Tribunal. He placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of Mohammad Yunus v. Mohammad Mustakin [ AIR 1984 SC 38 ] and Sadhnana Lodha v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2003) 3 SCC 524 ]. He placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of Mohammad Yunus v. Mohammad Mustakin [ AIR 1984 SC 38 ] and Sadhnana Lodha v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2003) 3 SCC 524 ]. He has further submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal (Qureshi, J.) in OA No. 213/95 dated 5.9.1995 still holds the field because in the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in OA No. 12908/96, 12909/96 and 12910/96, its has not set aside the observation and direction made by Justice Qureshi about anomaly and rules being unworkable in practice without proper amendment by the State Government and yet the State Government has not made any amendment though the defect was pointed out by the Tribunal long back. The order passed by Justice Qureshi would not stand merged in the judgment of the Supreme Court because in the Supreme Court judgement, there is no discussion and final conclusion on this point. Reliance is placed on the Supreme Court judgment passed in S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu [ AIR 2002 SC 3484 ]. It is also submitted relying on the Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of R. V. Desaiv. S.K. Khanolkar [ (1999) 7 SCC 54 para 9] that without statutory prohibition, seniority cannot be ignored. 12. Lastly, it has been submitted that even under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 13. In view of the rival stands taken by the parties, though by the impugned order (Annexure P-6) the learned Tribunal has not passed any order granting seniority to .the respondent No.3 Dr. Garg over petitioner Dr. Deshraj Jain with retrospective effect, but, since the petitioner was impleaded as respondent No.5 in the proceedings before the Tribunal, he has locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal. Otherwise there was no need to allow him to be impleaded as respondent and to contest the case. Before the Tribunal, the major case was contested against the respondent No.3 by the petitioner. Otherwise there was no need to allow him to be impleaded as respondent and to contest the case. Before the Tribunal, the major case was contested against the respondent No.3 by the petitioner. Now the only question remains to be determined by us is whether under the prevalent Rules and in view of the stand taken by the respondent No.1 State and No. 2 Director, Medical Education, before the Tribunal, is well within the four comers of law and respondent No.3 is eligible for being considered for promotion on the post of Professor on the date when the names of the junior/similarly situated persons were considered for promotion as Professor. 14. The case of the petitioner is that in view of Schedule IV of the Rules, the post of Professor on promotion shall be filled in subjectwise. In Schedule IV, five posts of Professor are prescribed and these posts are to be filled in by promoting the Readers subjectwise/specialisation, as under : Reader Professor 1. Pedodontia Pedodontia Reader Professor 2. Operative Operative Reader Professor 3. Oral Path Oral Path Reader Professor 4. Prosthetic Prosthetic Reader Professor 5. Oral Surgery Oral Surgery According to Schedule I in rule 5 to the Rules, the posts are not sanctioned subjectwise and this Schedule is prescribing four posts for Professors, 5 posts for Readers and 6 posts for Lecturers. The posts of Lecturers to be filled in by direct recruitment as per provision under rule 6(1) (a), whereas the posts of Readers and Professors are to be filled in by promotion as per rule 6(1) (b). As stated above, Schedule I is not showing four sanctioned posts of Professors subjectwise whereas Schedule IV is prescribing five posts of Professors subjectwise. This repugnancy has been pointed out in the earlier round of litigation between the petitioner and respondent No.3 in OA No. 18/93, order dated 28.2.1994. In this order, the learned Tribunal issued directions to the State Government to consider the respondent No.3 Dr. Garg for promotion to the post of Reader in the College of Dentistry. Against this the petitioner preferred SLP No. 15892/94 and the same has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 26.9.1994. In this order, the learned Tribunal issued directions to the State Government to consider the respondent No.3 Dr. Garg for promotion to the post of Reader in the College of Dentistry. Against this the petitioner preferred SLP No. 15892/94 and the same has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 26.9.1994. Inspite of clear direction when the respondent No.3 was not considered, again he preferred OA No. 213/95 and the learned Tribunal by order dated 5.9.1995 after considering the matter again in detail, and considering the Supreme Court Judgment passed in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and another v. Murli Baburao and another [ AIR 1988 SC 1048 ], wherein the Supreme Court has ruled that the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India for Regulations framed by it, are only recommendatory and not mandatory. The stand of the State Government before the learned Tribunal in OA No. 213/95 was that the respondent No. 3 Dr. Garg could not be considered for promotion on the post of Reader because there was no post vacant in the subject for which Dr. Garg has specialised, i.e., Peridontia and according to the recommendations and Regulations framed by the Medical Council, Dr. Garg was not eligible for being promoted on the post of Reader. The Supreme Court in the case of Dr. R. Murli Baburao (supra) has also held that right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service and it can only be regulated by a rule framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The recommendation of Medical Council could not override the Rules framed under Article 309 above. The Tribunal considered all these aspects again in detail in OA No. 213/95 holding in paras 15 and 16 (relevant portion) as under: "..... As such the State has not denied the fact that the earlier promotion, as pointed by the applicant or Dr. Saxena was based on his merit and seniority and not on the basis of subject in which he has specialised. Thus, it appears that the practice in the Department has been all through to promote the Doctors on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and not specialitiwise. In addition to this, it is also pertinent to note that there are five posts of Readers whereas only four specialities have been prescribed in the Rules. Thus, it appears that the practice in the Department has been all through to promote the Doctors on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and not specialitiwise. In addition to this, it is also pertinent to note that there are five posts of Readers whereas only four specialities have been prescribed in the Rules. Therefore, naturally the fifth post has to go to a senior person even if it may amount to have two Readers in one speciality. If the Government really intended to make promotion channel according to the speciality it would have provided for specialitywise post of Lecturers. Promotion as Readers from this speciality keeping the number of posts of Readers equivalent to the speciality and then similarly the post of Professors could have been created but the Government has failed to do so. Although this Tribunal has brought it to the notice of the Government and directed them to remove the anomalies by suitably amending the Rules but the State has not done anything in this behalf and has also not placed the case of the applicant for promotion alongwith others before the DPC. 16. In view of the aforesaid position, it is manifest that there is no legal impediment in promoting the present applicant Dr. Garg to the post of Reader as the scheme of the Rules does not show that the promotions have to be strictly in accordance with the speciality, coupled with the fact that the allegations of the applicant about the promotion of one of the Readers has not been denied by the State which was based on merit and seniority and not speciality. Had the case of the applicant being considered earlier with Dr. Saxena and Dr. Dhodapkar this question would not have been arisen at all. Shri Bagadia has argued that the Schedule III makes age limit for promotion as 40 years and the applicant is already 42 years now. But, I find no force in this argument because the petitioner has all through been claiming his promotion, being in the service of the Department, which has been denied to him and he had already filed Original Application in the year 1993 claiming the same relief. As such his claim which relate back to the date when he became eligible for promotion and he made his representation for promotion." 15. Against the order of Tribunal passed in OA No. 213/95, Dr. Mrs. As such his claim which relate back to the date when he became eligible for promotion and he made his representation for promotion." 15. Against the order of Tribunal passed in OA No. 213/95, Dr. Mrs. Sandhya Jain petitioner and other aggrieved doctors challenged the same before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has upheld the order passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 213/95 dated 5.9.1995 in CA No. 12906/96 with CA No. 12908/96, 12909/96 and 12910/96. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the judgment passed in these Civil Appeals by the Supreme Court and submitted that the Supreme Court has categorically upheld the validity of the Rules and despite such clear observations that promotions to the post of Lecturers, Readers and Professors were to be made subjectwise. The Tribunal has illegally ordered for consideration of the name of respondent No.3 Dr. Garg for promotion on the post of Professor with the date when the name of the junior/similarly situated persons were considered. 17. We have perused the entire judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in CA No. 12906/96 and others (ibid) and do not find such a direction or observation by the Supreme Court that promotions on the post of Reader and Professor shall be made subjectwise. The observations made by the Supreme Court were while considering the question of promotion of respondent No.3 on the post of Reader which was vacant and for which there was no clarity for the fifth post in Schedule IV. The Supreme Court has upheld the order passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 213/95 in which the Tribunal has specifically held that till proper amendments in the Rules are made, the promotion shall be made according to seniority-cum-merit and uptil now the Rules have not been amended by the State Government, an the contrary, in the return the State Government has expressed its desire to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal. Before the learned Tribunal, the document (Annexure A-21) was filed which was submitted before the Assembly in which it is contended that the post of Readers and Professors were not sanctioned subjectwise which is clear from Schedule I also. Before the learned Tribunal, the document (Annexure A-21) was filed which was submitted before the Assembly in which it is contended that the post of Readers and Professors were not sanctioned subjectwise which is clear from Schedule I also. It was also submitted that if the post of Professor is vacant the Reader of any subject can be promoted and in view of this, the learned Tribunal ordered for consideration of the case of respondent No.3 Dr Garg. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 213/95 is merged in the Supreme Court judgment passed in C.A. No. 12906/96 and in this judgment, the Supreme Court has nowhere held that the posts were not sanctioned subjectwise and Reader of any subject can be' promoted on the post of Professor, if the posts are vacant. After consideration, we do not find any force in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Supreme Court, in the case of S. Shanmugavel Nadar (supra), has considered the law of merger of the judgment or order passed by the Court below in the judgment of Superior Court and held that for declaration of law, there should be speech i.e. speaking order has to be passed by the Supreme Court. In view of this dicta of doctrine of merger of judgment, it cannot be said that the judgment of the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 213/95 is fully merged in the Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Sandhya Jain (supra). In this judgment, the Supreme Court has not at all touched the order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 213/95 and 18/93 regarding anomaly in the Rules as discussed in paras 15 and 16 of the order wherein the Tribunal has held clearly that since the earlier promotion of Dr. Saxena was based on his merit and seniority and not on the basis of subjectwise in which he is specialised. The Tribunal has also held that the practice in the Department has been all through to promote the doctors on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and not specialitywise. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has pointed out several instances where appointments were made by way of promotion right from 16.9.1988 to 4.7.2000 and during this period, not only Dr. Saxena, but, Dr. L.D. Gupta, Dr. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has pointed out several instances where appointments were made by way of promotion right from 16.9.1988 to 4.7.2000 and during this period, not only Dr. Saxena, but, Dr. L.D. Gupta, Dr. S.C. Neema, Dr. L.A. Saifee, Dr. S.L. Dhodapkar and Dr. Smt. Sandhya Jain were promoted. The decision' of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Chandigarh Administration (supra) relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, is not applicable in the legal and factual position involved in the case on hand. In the case of Chandigarh Administration (supra), the dispute was about cancellation of lease of plot on default in payment of instalment. The same was challenged before, the High Court on the ground that in similar cases, the State Government did not cancel the lease. Therefore, the lease of the respondent should have not been cancelled. The Supreme Court has held that the Court must first examine whether the orders passed in the other cases were valid or not. If the order in other cases found to be illegal and invalid, that cannot be relied upon for setting aside the impugned order. Such is not the legal and factual position in the present case. The learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 18/93 has specifically held that there is repugnancy in the Rule and the State Government should amend the same. Till the amendment, the promotion shall be made according to merit-cum-seniority and not subjectwise. On this crucial issue, the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Sandhya Jain (supra), in which order passed in O.A. No. 213/95 was challenged, has not passed any speaking order about anomaly in Schedule I and IV of the Rules as held by the Tribunal long back in O.A. No. 18/93 decided on 28.2.1994 and again reiterated in O.A. No. 213/95. 20. Apart from this ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dr. Sandhya Jain (supra) is that when recruitment Rules are not clear as to how the fifth post of the Reader could be filled-up then the same can be filled-up by an administrative decision of the Government and such decision cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions of the Dental Council Regulation. Sandhya Jain (supra) is that when recruitment Rules are not clear as to how the fifth post of the Reader could be filled-up then the same can be filled-up by an administrative decision of the Government and such decision cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions of the Dental Council Regulation. Before this Court also no arguments have been advanced regarding Regulation or Direction issued by the Dental Council for promotion of Readers and Professors in the Dental College. Much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Sandhya Jain (supra), but, applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in this judgment, the respondent No.3 Dr. Garg deserves to be considered for appointment by way of Promotion on the post of Professor because, according to Schedule I of the Rules, four posts of professors are prescribed without subjectwise whereas in Schedule IV, five posts of Professors are shown and that too by subjectwise. The Reader of particular subject can be promoted in the same subject on the post of Professor. Dr. (Smt.) Sandhya Jain was appointed as Lecturer in the subject Orthodontics. She was also promoted as Reader though for the Reader, no post in Orthodontics subject is prescribed in Schedule IV. She was also promoted as stated above to the post of Professor and in Schedule IV also no post of Professor is prescribed for subject Orthodontics. As ruled by the Supreme Court, when Rules are not clear, then administrative decision of the State Government would prevail for the purposes of promotion of Readers to the post of Professors. For promoting respondent No.3 Dr. Garg, as stated above, the State Government has already taken administrative decision to promote him on the post of Professor. It appears that other doctors i.e. Dr. Saxena, Dr. L.D. Gupta, Dr. Neema, Dr. L.S. Saifee, Dr. S.L. Dhodapkar and Dr. (Smt.) Sandhya Jain were promoted by the State Government after taking administrative decision and, therefore, it cannot be said that their promotions were illegal. 21. It appears that other doctors i.e. Dr. Saxena, Dr. L.D. Gupta, Dr. Neema, Dr. L.S. Saifee, Dr. S.L. Dhodapkar and Dr. (Smt.) Sandhya Jain were promoted by the State Government after taking administrative decision and, therefore, it cannot be said that their promotions were illegal. 21. We are not able to understand and we express our displeasure in regard to the fact that though long back the Tribunal pointed out anomaly in the order passed in O.A. No. 18/93 against which the S.L.P. No. 15892/94 was also dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court by order dated 26.9.1994. Thereafter, again the same repugnancy has been pointed out by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 213/95 decided on 5.9.1995. Against this order also, Dr. Sandhya Jain and other doctors preferred the SLP and the same has also been dismissed. The Supreme Court has not said that there is no anomaly or repugnancy in the Rules. The respondent No. 1 has also decided to comply with the order as passed in O.A. No. 213/95 and confirmed by Hon'ble the Apex Court. During pendency of this petition, under time bound scheme respondent No. 3 and 4 have also been promoted on the posts of Professors and in the meantime, respondent No. 4 Dr. Saxena has retired. But, the State Government has not amended the Rules to remove the anomaly or repugnancy which is creating one after another litigation between the doctors of the College of Dentistry which is the only College of the Government having limited seats in Teaching Department. 22. The Lecturers, Readers and Professors of the College of Dentistry are litigating for promotion since last more than fifteen years and this is nothing but a sheer waste of valuable time of the Courts and public exchequer vis-a-vis mental/physical harassment and financial loss to the doctors of Dental College. If the State Government would have brought amendment in view of the order passed in O.A. No. 18/93 decided on 28.2.1994, probably all later litigations between the doctors would have not taken place. It cannot be denied that because of litigations on the issue of promotion, they may be having strained relations though they perform a very onerous, responsible and respectable job of teaching. It cannot be denied that because of litigations on the issue of promotion, they may be having strained relations though they perform a very onerous, responsible and respectable job of teaching. We expect that the State Government shall now take appropriate action to remove the anomaly/repugnancy as pointed out by the Tribunal in the order/judgment passed in O.A. No. 18/93 and O.A. No. 213/95 dated 5.9.1995. 23. In the wake of discussion in the preceding paragraphs, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Tribunal in favour of respondent No. 3 Dr. Garg. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner, having no merits, is hereby dismissed, with no orders as to costs. ..........................