Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1938 (JHR)

Ramyatan Choudhary v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-08-24

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing notification dated 17th July, 2010, whereby respondent no. 3 has been appointed as Principal of Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad and respondent no. 4 has been appointed as Superintendent, M.G.M College & Hospital, Jamshedpur; and further prayer has been made for direction upon the concerned respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the basis of seniority either on the post of Principal of Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad or Superintendent, M.G.M College & Hospital, Jamshedpur. 2. The factual exposition, as delineated in the writ application, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1981 as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Primary Health Centre, Sugauli, East Champaran. Thereafter, in the year 1986, he was posted as Resident Medical Officer at Anugrah Narayan Memorial Medical College & Hospital, Gaya on the teaching post and on 10.09.1990 he was transferred to M.G.M. Medical College & Hospital on promotion as Assistant Professor. By passage of time, on 22.01.1996, the petitioner was given promotion on the post of Associate Professor in Anesthesia Department and thereafter on 10.09.1999, he was promoted on the post of Professor in the said college. 3. It has been averred that respondent no. 3-Arun Kumar Choudhary joined as tutor at Patliputra Medical College & Hospital, Dhanbad on 13.01.1992; promoted on the post of Assistant Professor on 13.01.1995; further promotion was given on the post of Assistant Professor on 13.01.1995; he was promoted to the post of Associate Professor on 13.01.2000 and thereafter promotion was given to him on the post of Professor on 13.01.2004. Simultaneously, respondent no. 4-Sheo Shankar Prasad was given promotion on the post of professor on 15.07.2000. 4. It has further been averred that in March, 2010 an advertisement was published for regular posting of Principal and Superintendent of the Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad and MGM College & Hospital, Jamshedpur, against which, the petitioner was called for interview. It has been stated that after receipt of Interview letter, the petitioner represented before the authority but it did not evoke any response and the respondents- authorities issued impugned notification whereby respondent no. 3 and 4 were selected on the posts in question. 5. Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned Sr. S.C. I for the respondents-State. 6. 3 and 4 were selected on the posts in question. 5. Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned Sr. S.C. I for the respondents-State. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the petitioner being the senior most ought to have been selected but ignoring this fact and by giving complete go bye to the rules and instructions of the Government, as well as the direction given by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2006 in W.P. (S) No. 4960 of 2003, the private respondent no. 3 and 4 have been appointed thereby they sat over the petitioner, who is senior to them. 7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner referring to advertisement at Annexure 2 submitted that in the advertisement itself it has clearly been stipulated that selection shall be made as per the notification issued by the Health & Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, but while making selection, stipulation made in the advertisement has been given a complete go bye. To strengthen his argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioner referring to notification dated 10th October, 2008 submitted that in this notification criteria has been laid down for appointment on the post of Principal wherein it has been said that the selection/appointment of the Principal of the college has to be made amongst the senior most professor of the college, but, by adopting the means of pick and choose, private respondent nos. 3 and 4 have been selected though they are junior to petitioner in utter violation of government rules/regulations/circulars. 8. Learned Senior Standing Counsel 1, appearing for the respondents-State submitted that for selection on the post of Principal and Superintendent, eligible candidates were called for interview by the duly constituted Selection Committee, who recommended the names of the candidates for selection, which got approval and accordingly impugned notification was issued. It has further been submitted that posting on the post of Principal and Superintendent were not promotional posts but its appointment-cum-posting are not based on seniority rather it is made as per provision of 8 (ii)(ch) of the Bihar Medical Education Service Cadre at it Cadre Posts Recruitment Rules, 1997. 9. Learned Senior Standing Counsel 1 further referring to Evaluation Sheet annexed with counter affidavit submitted that in the interview the petitioner has been awarded only 8 marks out of 40 whereas respondent no. 9. Learned Senior Standing Counsel 1 further referring to Evaluation Sheet annexed with counter affidavit submitted that in the interview the petitioner has been awarded only 8 marks out of 40 whereas respondent no. 3 has been awarded 29 marks and respondent no. 4 has been awarded 25 marks; thereby they secured their selection by obtaining higher marks than that of petitioner. 10. After giving my anxious consideration to the pleadings available on record and on perusal of documents available on record, in particular the Advertisement annexed as Annexure 2 to writ application, it appears that the impugned advertisement speaks that selection/regular posting on the post in question be made as per Clause 8(ii)(ch) of Bihar Medical Service Cadre Post and Recruitment Rules, 1997 and further in the Column ''Selection Process'', it has unequivocally been stated that selection/regular posting on the post in question shall be made on the basis of seniority, eligibility and work efficiency on the basis of recommendation made by duly constituted Selection Committee. From the pleadings available on record, it appears that the petitioner never challenged the advertisement rather he choose to participate in the selection process without any demur and submitted his Bio-date; thereby he accepted all the conditions mentioned in the advertisement. In that eventuality, submission of representation few days before the date of interview stating that seniority may be considered as yardstick for selection/regular posting on the post in question, shall be of no help to the petitioner, since as per the advertisement seniority or length of service has never been a criterion for selection. Furthermore, from bare perusal of Evaluation Sheet for candidates of Principal/Superintendent in Medical College, it appears that the petitioner secured less marks than the selected candidates. 11. As a logical sequitur to the facts, reasons and discussions made in the forgoing paragraphs and conclusions arrived at by this Court, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.