Dr. Rani Indira Sinha vs The State of Bihar and Others

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.—This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to count the teaching experience of the petitioner from 31.12.1990 and thereafter to modify the Gradation List of the Tutors/Assistant Professor of Pharmacology and consequential benefits flowing from that. Petitioner possesses the Maters'' Degree in Pharmacology. It seems that the panel for appointment and posting of Tutor in Pharmacology was prepared and although petitioner''s name figures at serial No. 1 of the panel but she was not appointed as Tutor in Pharmacology but by* notification dated 29.12.1990 (Annexure-1) she was appointed as Tutor in Anatomy and posted at Patna Medical College Hospital. She joined the said department on 31.12.1990. Later on, by notification dated 12.6.1995 (Annexure-3), petitioner was posted as Tutor Pharmacology against the vacancy of one Dr. Rafat Ali Shakoor. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, she joined as Tutor in Pharmacology. Thereafter, the Sate Government issued another notification dated 17.5.1996 (Annexure-4), whereby the service of the petitioner was regularised on the post of Tutor Pharmacology on superannuation of Dr. S.K. Prasad on 20.8.1995. In the said notification, it was observed that although the name of the petitioner is at Serial No. 1 in the panel of Tutor of Pharmacology but she was not posted as such.

It is the claim of the petitioner that she ought to have been promoted in the department of Pharmacology when she was promoted as such in the department of Anatomy by order dated 31.12.1990 and as such, for the purpose of experience in the department of Pharmacology, the date which shall be relevant would be 31.12.1990. Accordingly her prayer is to treat the experience gained by her in the department of Anatomy for the purpose of Pharmacology and her position in the gradation list of Tutor of Pharmacology be accordingly altered.

Mr. B.P. Pandey, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the respondent State having admitted that the petitioner ought to have been promoted as Tutor in Pharmacology in the year 1990 and the respondents having failed to do the same, services rendered by the petitioner as Tutor in the department of Anatomy is fit to be counted for the purpose of experience in the department of Pharmacology and accordingly, her position in the seniority list of the Assistant Professor/Tutor in the department of Pharmacology deserves to be revised.

Having considered the contention of the counsel for the petitioner, I do not find it a fit case for interference by this Court at such a distance of time. In my opinion the petitioner intends to dig out the matter from the grave. Petitioner''s name finds place in the panel of Tutor of Pharmacology but instead of she being appointed as Tutor in Pharmacology by order dated 29.12.1990, she was appointed as Tutor in the department of Anatomy. Petitioner''s qualification is Master''s Degree in Pharmacology and Therapeutics. She did not protest excepting filing representation. In case the petitioner was aggrieved by that, she ought to have brought an appropriate action before a court of law and should not have accepted appointment as Tutor in Anatomy. Not only this by notification dated 12.6.1995 (Annexure-3), she was posted as Tutor in Pharmacology and she accepted it too without any action before a court of law. Further by notification dated 17th of May, 1996, she was regularised against the post of Assistant Professor and then also petitioner did not question that.

A tentative list of Gradation List of Tutors and Assistant Professors in Pharmacology was prepared and according to the petitioner her name did not figure in that, which assertion is disputed by the respondents, she filed a representation and thereafter a final gradation list was prepared in which the name of the petitioner has been shown at Serial No. 9 showing her date of posting as Tutor on 1.7.1995. She contends that for reckoning the seniority, her date of appointment be treated as 13.12.1990, i.e. the date on which she was appointed as Tutor in the department of Anatomy. I wonder how the experience gained by a person in the department of Anatomy can be counted for teaching experience in the department of Pharmacology. In case, while posting the petitioner in the department of Anatomy she was deprived of her right to be posted as Tutor in the department of Pharmacology in the year 1990, nothing prevented her to question the same. In the present application the whole attempt of the petitioner is to dig out the matter from the grave. At such a distance of time, it shall not be prudent exercise of power by this Court to unsettle the matter already settled for more than a decade. I do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed in limine.