AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)
The appointment of respondent no.5 to the post of Assistant Professor, Pathology, against an unreserved post falling at roster point No.38, vide order dated 15.07.2019 (Annexure P-8) issued by the Research and Medical Education Department, Government of Punjab (respondent No.3), has been challenged in the instant writ petition on the ground that the same has been made in complete disregard of the order dated 28.11.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by this Court in CWP No.14484 of 2016.
The petitioner has further sought issuance of a direction to the respondents to appoint her as Assistant Professor in the stream of Pathology, being the senior-most and eligible candidate.
Learned counsel for the petitoner contended that the petitioner is senior to the respondent no.5 and was throughout eligible for being promoted to the post of Assistant Professor in Pathology.
This is second round of litigation. The earlier writ petition (supra) preferred by petitioner was disposed of, on an assurance given by the respondent-department to hold DPC amongst the all in-service candidates. Notwithstanding, no DPC was ever conducted pursuant to Advertisement dated 11.05.2015 (Annexure P-2), and the matter was kept pending merely to frustrate the claim of petitioner by making her overage during the integrum.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, streneously opposed the instant writ petition, and reiterated the submissions made in their reply.
This Court has considered the rival submissions, and has perused the entire case file.
The earlier writ petition was disposed of with the hereinafter extracted directions:-
“Upon notice, a reply has been filed on behalf of the State. It is conceded that one post was wrongly included in the direct recruitment quota and has since been withdrawn vide order dated 30.8.2016 (R-1). It is also averred that as of now one post in the promotion quota is lying vacant (upon such withdrawal) and would be filled up by holding a DPC from amongst the in-service candidates including petitioners who fall within the zone of such consideration. The reason stated for not conducting the DPC is pendency of certain writ petitions enumerated in para 4 of the Preliminary Objections.
Even at the time of hearing, learned State counsel submits that the moment such writ petitions are disposed of, the DPC in accordance with law would be held. It is further stated by learned State counsel that the petitioners, if at all are aggrieved against the conduct of DPC in accordance with previous rules or subsequently notified rules, would have a fresh cause of action.
In view of the aforesaid developments, the present writ petition thus does not require any further adjudication and hence liable to be disposed of as in fructuous. Ordered accordingly.”
On the proposal of reply of the respondent-State, it transpires that a DPC was duly convened on 18.06.2019 and the name of the petitioner was included in the agenda for consideration. However, she could not be selected.
The reply submitted by the department further, spells out that in the Advertisement dated 20.11.2018, it was approved by the State Government that the earlier applications against which DPC has not been convened till date, stood withdrawn. The reason for doing so was that the earlier advertisement was issued on 11.05.2015, which was before the notification of new rules i.e. Punjab Medical Education (Group A) Service Rules, 2016, (PMES-2016 Rules). These rules were immediately challenged by many doctors and during the pendency of proceedings before this Court, interim directions were issued vide order dated 18.05.2017.
Finally, the legality of aforesaid interim order, reached up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereupon, a direction was issued upon this Court to decide the matter within three months. Finally, writ petition, challenging the new rules was decided on 13.12.2018, and immediately, thereafter, a recruitment process was initiated and a new advertisement dated 20.11.2018, was issued.
The petitioner's candidature was duly considered in the DPC convened on 18.06.2019, therefore, the issue as raised before this Court, is totally against the facts. While confronted with the aforesaid specific stand of the respondent-State, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner does not survive.
In view of the above fair submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, instant petition, is hereby, dismissed.
All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.