DR. DURYODHAN SAHU AND ORS. versus JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 77 · Decided: 25-08-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
DR. DURYODHAN SAHU AND ORS. 
v. 
JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 25, 1998 
[S.C. AGRAWAL, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND 
M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Administrative T1ibunals Act, 1985-5.14, 15, 19 and 2(}-Power of Ad-
ministrative T1ib11nals to enteitain Public Interest Litigation ( P.I.L. )-Held, 
Administrative Tiibunals cannot ente1tain P.I.L.-Constitution of India, Ar-
C 
tic/es 226/227 and 32-Public Interest Litigation. 
Administrative Tribwzal-Jurisdiction-Technical Question-Held, 
T1ibwzal should not ordinwily inte1fere with the opinion of the expeJts and 
the concemed authOTities. 
Words 
& 
Phrase~~'Person Aggrieved', 'Service M alters', 
'Order'-Meaning of in the context of Administrative T1ib11nals Act, 1985. 
D 
The Orissa Public Service Commission issued an advertisement 
inviting applications for the posts of Junior Teacher (Lecturer) in several 
disciplines including surgical gastroenterology. The minimum educational E 
qualification was prescribed as under : 
"(a). A candidate must have obtained a post-Graduate Degree in the 
concerned speciality/higher speciality or any other e!Juivalent degree or 
!JUalification prescribed by the I.M.C/Dental Council of India as the case 
may be for all the above posts. 
(b). For the post of surgical gastroenterology, candidates possessing 
M.S. (general surgical) Degree with 2 years special training in surgical 
gastroenterology from the institution recognised by the M.C.I. are eligible." 
The petitioner was a !JUalified surgeon with M.S. Degree in General 
Surgery and had been working in the Department of Gastroenterology of 
S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack as an Assistant Surgeon from 17.9.1987 
and was assisting the Professor and Head of the Department of Surgical 
. Gastroenterology for about five years during which period he had acquired 
F 
G 
the 'special training/experience' in the said subject. S.C.B. Medical College, H 
77 
78 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP.1 S.C.R. 
A Cuttack was also one of the institutions recognised by the Medical Council 
of. India (M.C.I.). In response to the aforesaid advertisement, the ., 
petitioner applied for the post of Junior Teacher (Lecturer) in the dis-
cipline of Surgical Gastroenterology. The case of the petitioner and 
another candidate was referred to the Director of Medical Education & 
B Training by the Public Service Commission for his opinion on their 
eligibility for selection. The Director vide letter No. 1387 M.E.T. dated 
20.7.1992 expressed his opinion that the petitioner was c1ualified to he 
considered as per M.C.I. rules along with other eligible candidates. The 
Commission recommended the name of Dr. M to Govt. alongwith the 
advice that it had maintained a reserve list of suitable candidates for a 
C period of one year from the date of recommendation. The reserve list 
included the name of the petitioner. The Govt. found that the Department 
of Surgical Gastroenterology was understaffed and it was not in accord-
ance with MCI Pattern. Hence, the Govt. created one more post of Lecturer 
on 25.8.1993 and on the same day, rec1uested the Public Service Commis-
D sion to recommend the name of a suitable candidate from the reserve list. 
On 30.8.1993, the Commission recommended the name of the petitioner 
for appointment. 
At that stage, three applications were filed before the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal. The prayers and the averments in all the three 
E applications were almost identical. The prayers were for (i) quashing the 
order of the Govt. dated 25.8.1993 creating one more post of Junior 
Teacher, (ii) debarring the petitioner from being appointed as Junior 
Teacher and (iii) preventing the Govt. from appointing any candidate as 
Lecturer without requisite qualification and training in the super 
F speciality. The substance of the allegations was that the petitioner did not 
possess the qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer and the Govt. 
in order to accommodate him created another post which was not adver-
tised. It was alleged that the appointment was not nnly malafide and illegal 
but it was also against public interest and that the petitioner had exerted 
inlluence over the concerned authorities and managed to secure the ap-
G pointment. The applications were opposed by the Govt. and the petitioner 
on merits as well as on the ground of maintainability. The Tribunal held 
that the applications were maintainable at the instance of the applicants 
and restrained the appointment of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.