REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND ANR. versus S. BHAGYABATI DEVI

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 84 · Decided: 17-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND ANR. 
B 
v. 
S. BHAGY ABATI DEVI 
MAY 17,2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Service law: Time Scale Promotion Rules, 1991-Rules 17(B) and 31-
Medical officer (SP M)-Appellant working as medical officer (SPiil) promoted 
C to the post of Assistant Professor w.ef 1995-Respondent working as medical 
officer promoted as Assistant Professor w.ef 1998-Respondent filed writ 
petition questioning seniority of appellant_ on the plea that appellant having 
never held any teaching post was not entitled to promotion-High Court 
directed that respondent shall be treated to be senior to appe/lant-Co"ectness 
of-Held: Correct-Post of medical officer (SPM) is not equ}valent to ihe 
D teaching post-Performing a teaching job or working as a demonstrator 
once in a while would not render non-teaching post to a teaching post. 
Respondent was appointed as a Medical Officer in the year 1984. On 
completion of 10 years, she was appointed as an Assistant Professor with effect 
from 1. 7.1998. Dr.Twas appointed as a Medical Officer (SPM) in the year 
E 1983. In terms of the rules framed by the Executive Council of RIMS, she 
could be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor on the 
expiry of IO years of working in the post of Medical Officer. She was promoted 
with effect from 1.2.1995 in the post of Assistant Professor. 
Respondent filed a writ petition before High Court questioning the 
F seniority assigned to Dr. T on the plea that she having never held 11ny teaching 
post while •. ~ting as Medical Officer (SPM) was not entitled to promotion to 
the post of Assistant Professor. 
The High Court having regard to the fact that both Dr. T and respondent 
G had further been promoted to the post of Associate Professor, did not disturb 
the said appointments, but directed that respondent shall be treated to be senior 
to Dr. T. Aggrieved by the order of High Court, RIMS and Dr. T both appealed 
before this court. 
H 
84 
REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF M£t)ICAL SCIENCE v. S. BHAGY ABA Tl DEVI 
85 
-I 
Appellants contended that although rendition of service in a teaching A 
post for 10 years is a condition precedent for becoming eligible for the 
purported Time Scale Promotion to the post of Assistant Professor under the 
Time Scale Promotion Rules, 1991, Dr. T must be held to have fulfilled the 
said criteria as her posting in the Department of Community Science was 
treated as regular teaching service. In the alternative, it was submitted that 
the amendment of the Rules carried out in 2005 is clarificatory in nature. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In exercise of power conferred under Rules 17(B) and 31 of 
·the Constitutional bye laws of the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, 
Imphal, the Chairman, Executive Council framed rules known as Time Scale 
Promotion Rules, 1991. "Registrar Grade" has been defined in Rule 3(d) of 
B, 
c 
the said Rules to include Medical Officer (Teaching and Non-Teaching). Rule 
3(g) defines teaching post to mean all posts in the grade of Registrar. On or 
about 28.10.2005, Time Scale Promotion Rules had been amended to include 
Medical Officers (non-teaching) to Senior Medical Officers in the pay scale D 
of Rs. 10,325-325-15,200/-. The Rules provide for creation of teaching posts 
as well as non-teaching posts. The Registrar Grade as defined in Rule 2(D) 
includes Medical Officer, both teaching and non-teaching. 
[Para 6 and 11) (87-G; 88-A; 91-C; 92-A] 
2.1. RIMS has not produced any duty chart for the Medical Officers E 
(SPM). From the documents whereupon reliance has been placed, it only 
appears that the Medical Officers (SPM) are required to take classes once in 
a while. Dr.Twas not, therefore, required to take classes on a regular basis. 
For the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to what would be the nature of 
the post held by the incumbent the duties attached to the post would be of 
seminal importance. The Rules do not provide for the nature of duty attached F 
to the Medical Officer (SPM). No other document in that behalf has also been 
brought on record. Even whether preventive medicine is taught or not as a 
subject has not been disclosed. Performing a teaching job once in a while or 
working as a Demonstrator once in a while could not render the non-teaching 
post to a teaching post The RIMS might have thought that the post of Medical G 
Officer (SPM) is a teaching post, but when a challenge was thrown by 
respon
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.