Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1518 (RAJ)

V. D. Sinha v. State of Rajasthan

2016-10-20

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. By this common order all the aforesaid thirteen writ petitions shall be decided together, as the learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that on facts and law all the writ petitions are identical. 2. Petitioners to above writ petitions are working as Professor and are Senior Most Members of the Faculty in the various medical colleges run by the State of Rajasthan. 3. The learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the State of Rajasthan has established following six medical colleges and they are run by the Government: (i) Sawai Maan Singh Medical College, Jaipur. (ii) J.L.N. Medical College, Ajmer. (iii) Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur. (iv) RNT Medical College, Udaipur. (v) S.P. Medical College, Bikaner. (vi) Government Medical College, Kota. 4. The present writ petitions pertain to medical colleges which fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench. 5. The controversy raised in the present writ petitions is in very narrow compass. The petitioners herein have assailed the policy of the State Government to rotate the office of Head of Department of the various specialized departments in the medical college between the members of the faculty. The State has issued a Circular to rotate office of Head of Department of various specialized departments in the medical college in deference to the observations made by Division Bench of this court in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Keerti Mathur v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 1878/2014, decided on 31.3.2016. The Division Bench in Dr. (Mrs.) Keerti Mathur's case (supra) held that office of Head of Department is not a cadre post. 6. Mr. S.K. Gupta, the learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State of Rajasthan has submitted that the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court were accepted by the State Government in right earnest and the impugned Circular has been issued after pronouncement of the decision in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Keerti Mathur (supra). 7. To rotate office of Head of Department in a medical college or in a University, is a policy decision of the Government. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not demonstrate that they have any vested right to hold office of Head of Department of a particular department in the medical college. (Mrs.) Keerti Mathur (supra). 7. To rotate office of Head of Department in a medical college or in a University, is a policy decision of the Government. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not demonstrate that they have any vested right to hold office of Head of Department of a particular department in the medical college. The learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned Circular could not spell out any circumstance which has gone to their disadvantage or detriment. Admittedly, no salary or perk of the petitioner which holding office of Head of Department has been reduced or withdrawn. 8. Only criticism advanced against the impugned Circular, that the junior will write the Annual Confidential Report of the senior, has been blunted by Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG by placing on record subsequent Circular issued by Medical Education (Group-1) Department on 22.6.2016, wherein it has been stated that no junior will write Annual Confidential Report of senior member of the faculty. 9. Having failed to assail the Circular, the learned counsel for the petitioners have raised a very valid argument that Circular has to operate prospectively and for the period which the petitioners have already held office of Head of Department cannot be counted to give effect to the Circular issued by the Medical Education Department. In the Circular dated 22.6.2016, it has been stated as under:- ^^1- izFker% 'kS{kf.kd fpfdRlky;ksa esa lEcaf/kr fof'k"Vrk ds ofj"Bre vkpk;Z@lg vkpk;Z dks foHkkxk/;{k fu;qDr fd;k tk;sxk tks ,d ckj esa vf/kdre 2 o"kZ ds fy, foHkkxk/;{k jgsaxsA ¼nks o"kZ½ 2- rRi'pkr~ ofj"Brk ds vk/kkj ij dzekuqlkj vkpk;Z@lg vkpk;Z dks foHkkxk/;{k fu;qDr fd;k tk;sxk] ftldh vof/k Hkh 2 o"kZ dh gksxhA foHkkx esa ,d gh vkpk;Z@lg vkpk;Z gksus dh fLFkfr esa nwljk vkpk;Z@lg vkpk;Z miyC/k gksus rd dk;kZy; esa o`f) dh tk ldsxhA** 10. A perusal of the Circular reveals that the senior most person has to hold office of Head of Department for a period of two years. It nowhere stated that a person who has already held office of Head of Department earlier shall be denied two years from the commencement of the Circular. On this important aspect Circular is not only silent but specifically state that rotation has to commence, keeping seniority in view. It nowhere stated that a person who has already held office of Head of Department earlier shall be denied two years from the commencement of the Circular. On this important aspect Circular is not only silent but specifically state that rotation has to commence, keeping seniority in view. As a natural corollary it is to be inferred that from the day Circular dated 22.6.2016 came into operation, senior most Professor or member of faculty has to discharge duties of Head of Department for a period of two years. Therefore, even if a person has been holding office of Head of Department earlier, he or she shall not be excluded. Circular has to operate from the day it has been issued. In other words, from the date of issuance of Circular, senior most professor even though he has held office of Head of Department earlier, shall discharge functions of Head of Department for a period of two years. 11. Contention raised by Mr. S.P. Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondent that Circular as to apply retrospectively cannot be accepted as this Court can neither add nor subtract any word in the Circular. From a bare reading of the Circular, it is evident that the senior most professor shall hold office of Head of Department for two years from the commencement of the Circular. 12. In view of interpretation given by this Court to the impugned Circular, the contention raised by Mr. S.P. Sharma, Sr. Counsel that persons who has already held office of Head of Department earlier, will be debarred to discharge duties of Head of Department cannot be accepted, as circular is prospective in nature. In view of above, all the writ petitions stand disposed of.