DR. (MRS.) SANDHYA JAIN versus DR. SUBHASH GARG AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 12 · Decided: 15-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
.. 
DR. (MRS.) SANDHY A JAIN 
v. 
DR. SUBHASH GARG AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 15, 1999 
[G.8. PATTANAIK, M. SRINIVASAN AND 
N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
MP. Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987: 
Schedules I and JV-Promotion-From Lecturer to Reader-Dental College-
Sch. I indicated 5 sanctioned posts of Reader-Sch. JV indicated Lecturers 
in/our disciplines could be promoted as Readers but no.indication regarding 
fifth post-But State Government decided to fill up fifth post by a Lecturer 
D of any discipline-Jn the past also such a practice followed-However, despite 
directions from Supreme Court no record pertaining to the said Governmerit 
decision produced-Affidavit said to have been filed in this regard not traced 
out in court record-Held: Inference drawn that fifih post of Reader being 
filled up in the past by a Lecturer of any discipline-Appointment of two 
E Readers of same discipline not prohibited under Dental Council Regulations-
Hence, Lecturers of any discipline entitled·to be promoted to the fifth post 
of Reader on basis of seniority-Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 16 and 
309-Dental Council Regulations. 
F 
Administrative Law: 
Promotion-Statutory Rules-No provision regarding-Executive 
decision-Taking of-Held: Can be taken if it is not contrary to statutory 
rules. 
The respondent was a Lecturer in a College of Dentistry. Schedule I to 
G the M.P. Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987, 
framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, provided for five posts 
of Readers. Schedule IV to the Rules indicated as to how promotion to the 
post of Reader would be given in four different disciplines but there was no 
indication.as regards the fifth post of Reader. Although there were vacancies 
H 
12 
DR. SANDHY A JAIN v. DR. SUBHASH GARG 
13 
in the posts of Reader, the respondent was not considered for promotion to A 
.. the post of Reader by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). However, 
one Lecturer was promoted as Reader in the same discipline as that of the 
respondent. Being aggrieved the respondent filed an application before the 
State Administrative Tribunal, which directed the State Government to 
consider the case of the respondent for promotion to the post of Reader along B 
with others who were eligible. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that under the Dental 
Council Regulations it was not permissible to· have two Readers in the same 
discipline at the same time; that the fifth vacant post of Reader was already 
occupied by another Lecturer of the same discipline and, therefore, the C 
respondent could not be promoted as Reader. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that during the pendency 
of this appeal the State Government had conveyed its decision to the DPC that 
the fifth post of Reader could be given by promotion to a Lecturer in any 
discipline; that in the past also the same practice was followed; and that non- D 
consideration of respondent'-s case infringed upon his rights under Article 
16 of the Constitution. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. It is clear from Schedule IV of the M.P. Medical Education E 
(Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987 that promotion to the post of 
Reader has to be made from the post of Lecturer. Though there are five 
sanctioned posts of Reader under Schedule I but under Schedule IV only four 
posts of Reader could be filled up by the holders of the corresponding posts of 
Lecturer. It has not been indicated in Schedule IV as to how the fifth post of F 
Reader, which is provided for in Schedule I, would be filled up. In the absence 
of any provision in the Recruitment Rules framed under th'e proviso to Article 
309 of the Constitution, indicating as to how the fifth post of Reader would be 
filled up, the decision of the Government in this regard is significant inasmuch 
as the Government can issue executive instructions for the purpose, which G 
are not contrary to the Statutory Rules. [19-B, CJ 
1.2. In the past also the fifth post of Reader was filled up by giving 
promotion to a Lecturer from any discipline based on the Government 
decision in this regard. Despite directions from this Court documents relating 
to the said decision were not produced. An affidavit said to have been filed on H 
14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A behalf of the Government is also not traced out on record. It must, therefore, 
be 

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