DR. ANIL KUMAR SINHA versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 513 · Decided: 03-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

DR. ANIL KUMAR SINHA 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 3, 1998 
•. 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
B 
y· 
Service Law : 
Promotion-Assistant Professor in Medical College-Posted as Resident 
Medical Officer-Government Circular dated 7.9.1973 prohibiting grant of c 
teaching experience to any person who has not worked on regular teaching 
post-Claim for considering the service rendered as Resident Medical Officer 
towards his teaching experience for promotion-Rejected by High Court-
On appeal, held, not entitled to claim as of right that service rendered as 
Resident Medical officer to be counted as teaching experience in view of D 
Government Circular dated 7.9.1973-However, since the State Government 
"' 
has granted such benefit to others, direction issued to consider his case in 
the light of the nature of service rendered by him. 
The appellant was initiaily appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon and 
was thereafter posted as Demonstrator in Physiology Department. E 
Subsequently he was transferred and posted on supernumerary duty as a 
Medical Officer in Department of Paediatrics. In October 1971, he was 
posted as a Resident Medical officer in the same Department and continued 
till April, 1978. On aboljtion of post of Resident Medical Officer, he was 
appointed as Registrar and then as Assistant Professor in the Department 
of Paediatrics. The case of the appellant was that his services rendered as F 
Resident Medical officer from 19.10.1971 till 21.4.1978 should be considered 
""'< 
towards his teaching experience for the purpose of appointment as Assistant 
Professor as well as Associate Professor. The writ petition filed by the 
appellant was dismissed by the High Court holding that the period of service 
from October 1971 to April 1978 as Resident Medical officer cannot be 
counted as teaching experience in view of Government Circular dated 7.9.1973. G 
{' 
l-
Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant has preferred 
the present appeal . 
.... ;. 
The contention of the appellant was that since he was appointed as H 
513 
514 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] l S.C.R. 
A Resident Medical Officer prior to 24.1 I.1971 his case would not be governed 
by the latter part of the Notification prohibiting grant of teaching experience 
to any officer who has not worked on a regular teaching post; that the State 
Government itself on several instances have issued orders granting teaching 
experience to the employees even in case of retired employees similarly 
situated. 
B 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. I. The appellant cannot claim as of right that the services 
rendered by him for the period 19.10.1977 till 1.4.1978 should be counted 
C as teaching experience in view of the Government Circular dated 7.9.1973. 
Thus there is no infirmity in the order of Higo Court. (517-G J 
1.2. The Government order dated 7.9.1973 clearly indicates that after 
24.11.1971, no order for grant of teaching experience to any officer who has 
not worked on a regular teaching post will be passed. Under the first part 
D of the Notification when a doctor has worked against a non-teaching post and 
worked against a post created on supernumerary duty then the Government 
in the Health Department was passing independent orders as to whether the 
period can be treated as teaching experience. Admittedly no such order has 
been passed in favour of the appellant prior to 24.11.1971 or even till the date 
of judgment. In that view of the matter the appellant does not get any benefit 
E under the ~rst part of the Government Circular dated 7.9.1973. Necessarily 
the embargo contained in the second part of the said Government circular 
prohibiting the passing of an order for grant of teaching experience after 
24.11.1971 would apply. The post against which the appellant had been 
permitted to work from October 1971 to April 1978 is not a recognised 
F teaching post though the appellant asserts that while working as such he had 
been teaching the students of the Medical College. (507-D-E-F) 
2. However in view of the allegation that in several instances the State 
Government itself have issued orders granting teaching experience to the 
employees, even in case of retired employee, the State Government is directed 
G to consider the case of the appellant as to whether the services rendered by 
him for the period 19.10.1971 till 21.4.1978 can be considered towards his 
experience. This has to be done by co

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.