LexDR. RAMESH CHANDRA SINHA versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A c DR. RAMESH CHANDRA SINHA v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. AUGUST 23, 1988 [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND MURARI MORON DUTT, JJ.] Civil Services: Bihar Medical Service: Patna Medical College Hospital-Associate Professors of Plastic Surgery-Seniority a/- Length of teaching experience in Plastic Surgery to determine seniority. The appellant and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed Associate Professors of Plastic Surgery in the Patna Medical College on September 29, 1978. In the appointment order the name of the appel- lant was placed below the two respondents. In a writ petition moved by him under Art. 226 Of:tke Constitution claiming seniority above respon- Jl) dent No. 4, the High Court found that he had teaching experience in Plastic Surgery for a period of 3 years 8 months 3 days, while the respondent No. 4 had such experience for 4 years 7 months 27 days and accordingly held that the respondent No. 4 was senior to the appellant. In this appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellant E that in calculating the length of teaching experience the High Court had not taken into consideration that he had worked in the Plastic Surgery Department from November 29, 1963 to June 28, 1966 under the Head of the Department and If that period was taken into consideration along with the period determined hy the High Court he wood be senior .to respondent No. 4. F Allowing the appeal, HELD: The question of seniority between the appellant and respondent No. 4 is to be resolved on the basis of the length of teaching experience in Plastic Surgery. [568D I . A separate unit of Plastic Surgery was created in the Medical College Hospital on January 2, 1964. It is not disputed that the appel- lant had worked· as a teacher in that unit from January 2, 1964 to June 28, 1966. It cannot be said that during this period be had gained teach- ing experience in General Surgery, as stated in the affidavit of the State ItI Government, when, as a matter of fact.1 .be was teaching in Plastic 566 R.C. SINHA v. STATE OF BIHAR [DUTI, J.] 567 Surgery. Though the appellant had addressed a letter to the Superin- A iendent, Patna Medical College Hospital on December 21, 1963 seeking transfer to the Department of General Surgery, there is no material to show that his reques~ was acceded to or that he was, as a matter of fact, transferred from the ,pl~stic Surgery Unit to the General Surgery Department. Instead of complying with his request it was ordered that though he would work in the Plastic Surgery Department, he would be B deemed to have gained teaching experience in the Department of General Surgery. Such an order was not asked for by the appellant. The order was not only improper and unjwt but also illegaI. I~, 569B, E-GJ The High Court was, therefore, not justified in excluding the period from 2.1.1964 to 28.6.1966 from the computation of the teaching experience of the appellant in determining his seniority. That period C when added to the period of admitted teaching experience of the appellant; as found by the High Court, he will be senior to respondent No. 4. [569H-570A] The State of Bihar to assign to the appellant seniority over respon- D dent No. 4. [570B-cl · . CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTioN: Civil Appeal Nos. 39 & 40 of 1981. From the Judgment and Order dated 1.8.1980 of tlie Patna-High E Court in C.W.J.C. No. 650 of 1979 and 157 of 1978. · Tapas Roy and M.P. Jha for the Appellant. . D. Goburdhan, D.P. Mukharjee and A.K. Jha for the Respondents. ' F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. The only point that is involved in one of these. two appeals by special leave, namely, Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1981, which is the only effective appeal, relates to the seniority between the appellant G Dr. Ramesh Chandra Sinha and the respondent No. 4 Dr. P.K. Verma. The appellant has also challenged the seniority of Dr. S.L. Manda!, respondent No. :i in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1981, and Dr. J. Alam, respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 40 of 198L But, Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel appearing· on behalf of the appellant in both these appeals, has expressly given up the challenge in respect of . H B c 568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. these two persons. We are, accordingly, concerned with the question of seniority between the appellant and Dr. P.K. Verma in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1981 and, as the appellant does not press the case against Dr. J. Alam, th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.