Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 283 (JK)

Reyaz Ahmad Untoo v. State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Chief Secretary to Government

2015-06-01

B.S.WALIA, N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 01.01.2015 made in SWP no. 33/2013. 2. The appellant challenged Notification calling applications from eligible candidates for filling up the post of Principal, SKIMS which is a Medical College. As per Medical Council of India Regulations, the qualification required for the post of Principal for the Medical College is that a person should possess the recognized post-graduate medical qualification and other academic qualification from a recognized institution with a minimum of ten years’ teaching experience as Professor/Associate Professor/Reader in a medical college/Instt. out of which at least five years should be as Professor in a department. It is further mentioned that preference for these appointments may be given to the Heads of the Departments. 3. The qualification and service details furnished by the appellant which are reflected in page 43 of the typed set of papers clearly shows that the appellant has passed his M.S. Ophthalmology in 1986-88. He served as Assistant Professor and HOD Ophthalmology, Government Medical College during the period 25.09.1999 to 18.07.2005; Assistant Professor and HOD Ophthalmology, SKIMS Medical College, Bemina, Srinagar from 19.07.2005 to 29.10.2010 and Professor & HOD Ophthalmology, SKIMS Medical College, Bemina, Srinagar from 30.10.2010 till the date of Notification dated 06.11.2012. When the applications have been called for filling up the post of Principal, the appellant was not having five years of experience as Professor. 4. It is well settled principle of law that the Notification can be challenged by a person who is eligible to apply for the post in question. 5. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the petitioner is not eligible to apply for the post of Principal due to lack of experience of five years as Professor. There is no infirmity in the said order to take a contrary view. 6. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.