NITYA NAND versus STATE OF HARYANA ANO ORS.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 915 · Decided: 13-11-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 15 (AOOL.) S.C.R. 915 
NITYANANO 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA ANO ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7553 of 2009) 
NOVEMBER 13, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Haryana Medical Education Service Rules, 1988: 
rule 10 - Floating Professor and Associate Professor are 
different categories of posts in Haryana Medical Education 
Service. 
rule 10 - Seniority - Claim for- Appellant and (espondent 
No. 4 promoted to the post of Senior Professor substantively 
A 
B 
c 
on the same day - However, appellant not accorded seniority 
over respondent No. 4 as respondent No. 4 was already 
selected and appointed as Floating Professor from amongst D 
Associate Professors under rule 10 and was drawing higher 
pay-scale - Respondent No.4, having been selected as 
Floating Professor while the appellant continued as a 
substantive Associate Professorprior to their promotion as 
Senior Professor, must rank senior to the appellaQt to the post E 
of Senior Professor - Service law - Seniority. 
The question which has arisen for consideration in the 
present appeal is whether "Floating Professor" and 
"Associate Professor" are different categories of posts in 
Haryana Medical Education Service and, if the answer is 
in affirmative then whether High Court is justified in 
holding that respondent No.4, having been selected as 
Floating Professor while the appellant continued as a 
substantive Associate Professor prior to their promotion 
as Senior Professor, must rank senior to the appellant to 
the post of Senior Professor. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is true that, as per rule 3 of Haryana 
Medical Education Service Rules, 1988, Haryana Medical 
Education Service comprises of the posts with 
F 
G 
915 
H 
916 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A designation, scales of pay and other allowances as 
shown in Appendix A to the Rules. It is also true that in 
appendix A, no separate post of" Associate Professor" and 
"Floating Professor" are mentioned. However, from the 
Rules, it is apparent that "Associate Professor" and 
8 
"Fl~ating Professor" are different categories of posts in 
the service. It is so because as per rule 10 only those 
Associate Professors who had been working for the last 
10 years can be considered for selection to the post of 
Floating Professor. Sub-rule (1) of rule 10 begins with the 
expression, "The post of Floating Professor" and provides 
C that these posts shall be created to the maximum of five 
posts under the scheme as set out in the rule. This gives 
an indication that Floating Professor is a different category 
·of post in service. As a matter of fact, rule 10 is a special 
.provision for appointment as Floating Professor. The 
o selection procedure incorporates adjudgment of 
suitability for Floating Professorship by the selection 
committee. Moreover, had Floating Professor been not a 
distinct category, in rule 2(m) that defines "teacher", there 
would not have been mention of "Floating Professor". In 
so far as rule 9 is concerned, it has no application for 
E selection and appointment as Floating Professor. The very 
fact that there is a statutory provision with regard fo the 
appointment as Floating Professor shows that it is a 
separate category of post, more so, once an Associate 
Professor is selected and promoted as Floating Professor, 
F he comes in a higher pay-scale. [Paras 10 and 11) [923-G-
H; 924-A!G] 
1.2. On completion of ten years as Associate 
Professor, the candidature of respondent No. 4 for 
appointment as Floating Professor was considered; he 
G appeared before the selection committee and was found 
suitable for Floating Professorship and was in fact 
appointed as Floating Professor on July 19, 2006. The 
appellant had also completed ten years working as an 
Associate Professor but for the reasons best known to 
him, he did not choose to appear before the selection 
H 
l 
\ 
-l.t:. 
' 
"'-
~ 
! 
t. 
l 
....__r
I 
"' 
NITYA NANO v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
917 
committee and, consequently, he continued on the A 
substantive post of Associate Professor, albeit, he was 
working on ad hoc basis as Professor. It is true that on the 
same date i.e~ May· 2, 2007, the appellant and respondent 
No. 4 were promoted to the post of Senior Professor 
substantively but the appellant could not have been 
8 
accorded seniority over respondent No. 4 as respondent 
No. 4 was already selected and appointed as Floating 
Professor from amongst Associate Professors und

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