Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 875 (MP)

G. R. MEDICAL COLLEGE v. SHAKTI SINGH

2019-12-18

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, SHEEL NAGU

body2019
ORDER/JUDGMENT – Ms. Nidhi Patankar, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri D. P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent. This appeal shall also dispose of W. A. No. 1951/2019, W. A. No. 1952/2019 and W. A. No. 1953/2019. Fore the sake of convenience, the facts of W. A. No. 1950/2019 are being considered. This intra Court appeal filed under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the final order passed on 12-4-2019 in W. P. No. 3313/2019 by learned single Judge exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution allowed the petition in question by which challenge was made to Annexure P/1 dated 11-2-2019 sending the petitioner who is Assistant Professor at the G. R. Medical College to Government (Autonomous) Medical College, Shahdol on deputation until further orders. Annexure P/1 was passed by the Dean of G. R. Medical College, Gwalior. 2. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Single Judge has wrongly interpreted the provision of Rule 9 of M. P. Autonomous Medical College Educational Model Services Rules, 2018 (for brevity ‘the 2018 Model Rules’) which deals with deputation. 3. Learned counsel for appellants is heard on the question of admission and final disposal. 4. The learned single Judge for allowing the petition in question by quashing the impugned order was persuaded by the fact that there was no demand from Government (Autonomous) Medical College, Shahdol to justify the issuance of the impugned order and that the petitioner was not surplus at Autonomous Medical College, Gwalior and thus, could not be shunted out in the teeth of executive instruction of Director, Medical Education Department dated 18-2-2019. 5. The response of the appellant herein before the Writ Court was to the effect that the condition of non-transferability of the petitioner in the appointment letter is of no avail since the impugned order is not an order of transfer but of deputation. The response further reveal that since the order of deputation has been passed by the parent college itself the requirement of clause (2) of Rule 10 of 2018 Model Rules stands satisfied. The further revelation made in the response of appellant herein was that there is no need for taking prior consent of the petitioner before sending him on deputation as he was not being sent to foreign service outside the cadre or department and the lien of the petitioner remained intact. The further revelation made in the response of appellant herein was that there is no need for taking prior consent of the petitioner before sending him on deputation as he was not being sent to foreign service outside the cadre or department and the lien of the petitioner remained intact. 5-A. The relevant Rule 10 of the 2018 Model Rules relating to deputation as annexed with the return as R/1 is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience : – 5-B. A close scrutiny of the said Rule reveals that the process of filling of vacancies by deputation except in cases of members of the M. P. Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987 would be in the following terms : – (a) The executive committee of the autonomous college is the competent authority to fill up vacancies once on deputation for a initial period of 3 years subject to the condition that in no case the deputation would exceed 6 years. (b) Every deputation would require consent of the employer (parent college). 6. The return of the appellants/College is silent as to whether the impugned orders were passed based upon resolution/decision of the Executive Committee of the borrowing autonomous college at Shahdol. 6.1 In the instant case, it appears that without there being any decision taken by the Executive Committee of the borrowing college the lending autonomous college at Gwalior took a decision at its own level of sending the services of the petitioner on deputation to autonomous college Shahdol. It seems that an invisible supervening force persuaded the appellants/College to do so. 6.2 The course adopted by the appellants/college was at variance to the course contemplated by Rule 10 of the 2018 Model Rules for filling any post by deputation. The initiation for filling any post by deputation under the rule is required to be taken by the college which has vacancies and wants to fill them up by deputation by borrowing employees from the other autonomous college. For doing so, the executive committee of the borrowing college has to resolve and decide and sent a demand to the other autonomous college where the employees of the relevant cadre are available in surplus who can be borrowed to serve the borrowing college only after consent of the lending autonomous college (parent college) is obtained. 7. For doing so, the executive committee of the borrowing college has to resolve and decide and sent a demand to the other autonomous college where the employees of the relevant cadre are available in surplus who can be borrowed to serve the borrowing college only after consent of the lending autonomous college (parent college) is obtained. 7. The response of the appellants/College is silent about any meeting of Executive Committee and any resolution or decision taken to borrow employees on deputation from other autonomous colleges. The return of the appellants/college is further silent as to whether any consent was obtained or not? 8. The factual scenario reveals that the method adopted by the appellants/college was totally inverse to the method prescribed for filling any vacancy on deputation. Neither did the borrowing autonomous college at Shahdol make any attempt for filling up its vacancies on deputation nor did it seek the consent of the appellants/lending autonomous college at Gwalior for borrowing the services of the petitioner on deputation. 9. The facts clearly reveal that the appellants/autonomous college at Gwalior was moving on the dictates of an invisible supervening force and while doing so, twisted and turned Rule 10 of the 2018 Model Rules to satisfy the whims and caprice of the invisible force thereby subjecting the petitioner to unnecessary harassment compelling petitioner to knock the doors of this Court for initiating and contesting this avoidable piece of litigation. 10. Consequently, this Court finds no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the learned single Judge and therefore, the present appeal stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) out of which Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited with the Registry of this Court in favour of M. P. State Legal Service Authority and remaining Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein by digital transfer in Bank A/c of petitioner within 60 (sixty) days, failing which case be put up as PUD for execution.