STATE OF PUNJAB versus DR. R.N. BHATNAGAR AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 693 · Decided: 18-12-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
DR. R.N. BHATNAGAR AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 18, 1998 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Punjab Medical College Education Service (Class /) Rules, 1978: 
Rule 9(i)(d)-Promotion-Quota-rota rule-Vacancies-Filling up of-
By promotees and direct recruits-In the ratio of 3: I-Application of-Held: 
Rule 9 deals with reservation of appointment from two sources i.e., 
departmental promotees and direct recruits-Hence, Art. 16(1) and not Art. 
16(4) applicable-Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 16(1) and 16(4). 
, Rule 9-'Post '-Meaning of-Does not refer to total posts in the cadre 
but refers to vacancies-Once recruitment is made from two sources i.e., 
departmental promotees and direct recruitment, the candidates get fused and 
their birthmarks obliterated-Discrimination in further promotion not 
permitted. 
Rule 3 proviso and Rule 9-Promotion-Quota-rota rule-Vacancies-
Fil/ing up of-By promatees and direct recruits-In the ratio of 3:1-Cadre 
consisted of 5 posts-First three vacancies filled up by promotees, 41h by 
direct recruits and 51h, 61h, and 7'h by promotees-Thereafter, 81h roster point 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
was to be filled up by direct recruit but as this took mare time, departmental F 
promotee was promoted-validity of-Held: Such departmental promotee 
could fill in only the 9'h vacancy earmarked for promotees and not the 81h 
vacancy earmarked for direct recruits which is to be carried forward-
Therefare, when a direct recruit is appointed qua roster point 8, though he 
was treated as junior to the said pramotee, he could be said to be appointed 
on roster point 8 which was carried forward-Hence, counting 9'h roster G 
point as starting point for a fresh cycle for 3 promotees, the J 61h point must 
go to a direct recruit. 
Rule 3 proviso-Date of cammencement-28-7-1978-Recruitment of 
,Professors-Under erstwhile executive instructions-Deeming fiction under- H 
693 
694 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Applicability-Conditions and effect of-Cadre of Professors consisted of 5 
posts-But only 4 posts were actually occupied since the second incumbent 
had retired prior to the coming into force of the proviso to R.3-0ut of the 
said 4 posts, 3 were occupied by promotees and the 4'h by a direct recruit-
Held: The incumbents of all posts in the cadre actually holding the posts on 
the said date would remain in the cadre irresp~ctive of their source of 
B recruitment-Fifth incumbent not covered by proviso to R.3-Therefore, fresh 
rotational cycle will start with the fifth incumbency since the earlier rotational 
cycle envisaged under R.9 is complete-Consequently, roster point 16 has to 
be filled up by a promotee. 
c 
D 
E 
Statute Law: 
Deeming fiction-Extension of-By analogy-Held: Cannot be extended 
to cover any other field not meant to be covered. 
Practice and Procedure: 
New plea-Raising of-For the first time before Supreme Court-Held: 
Can be raised if it is a pure question of law not involving disputed question 
of/act. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Post"-Meaning of-Jn the context of R.9 of the Punjab Medical 
College Education Service (Class I) Rules, 1978. 
The respondent, an Assistant Professor in the Department of 
Ophthalmology in Government Medical College, was a promotee from the 
F post of Senior Lecturer. The question arose as to how the vacancy in the post 
of Professor of Ophthalmology was to be filled in on the retirement of the 
then incumbent. The relevant rule governing such posts is Rule 9(i)(d) of the 
Punjab Medical College Education Service (Class-I) Rules, 1978. The said 
rule reads as under: 
G 
"(9) Method of Appointment: 
(d) In the case of Professors: 
(i) 75 percent posts by promotion from amongst the Additional 
Professors, or, where Additional Professors are not available, from 
H 
amongst the Associate Professors, or where Associate Professors 
,,.-..---
.... 
-· 
STA TE v. DR. R.N. BHATNAGAR 
695 
are not available, from amongst the Assistant Professors, or by A 
transfer of official already in the service of the Government of India, 
or the State Government; 
(ii) 25 percent posts by direct recruitment;" 
According to the appellant-State, as there were five posts in the cadre B 
of Professors of Ophthalmology in the said College, on the basis of the 
aforesaid quota rule governing the recruitment in question, every three 
vacancies of Professors in the said cadre had to be filled in by departmental 
promotees while the fourth vacancy would be fil

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