Nagabhushana''s vs Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences (SIMS) and Others

Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J.

The petitioner, Dr. Nagabhushana S, has challenged the proceedings dated 5.12.2014 and proceedings dated 16.12.2014. In the former proceedings the Review Committee had recommended that the respondent No. 3, Dr. Sathyanarayana T.P. should be promoted to the post of Associate Professor. In the latter proceedings the Board had promoted the respondent No. 3 to the said post.

In brief the case of the petitioner is that in 1999 he had secured MBBS Degree from Mysore Medical College, University of Mysore; in 2006 he had secured Post Graduation in General Medicine i.e., from Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka. He worked as Assistant Professor in K.V.G. Medical College, Sulya and in M.V.J. Medical College, Bangalore. On 13.01.2011 he was appointed as Senior Resident, Department of General Medicine, at Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences (''SIMS'' for short). By order dated 2.9.2013 the post of Senior Resident was re-designated as Assistant Professor.

On 5.12.2014 under the Career Advancement Scheme, the Review Committee of the Institute considered the case of the petitioner along with the case of Dr. Sathyanarayana T.P., the respondent No. 3, for promotion to the post of Associate Professor. The Review Committee opined that while respondent No. 3 should be promoted to the said post, it did not consider the petitioner eligible for the said post. Therefore, the Review Committee recommended the name of respondent No. 3 for promotion to the said post. In the meanwhile, since the petitioner was aggrieved by the recommendation of the Review Committee for having not recommended his candidature to the said post, he sent a detailed representation, dated 3.2.2015, and sought clarification from the Medical Council of India. According to the letter dated 8.4.2015, the Medical Council of India opined that the petitioner is eligible for the aforementioned post. Meanwhile in its proceeding dated 16.12.2014, the Board agreed with the recommendation of the Review Committee. It appointed respondent No. 3 to the post of Associate Professor. Thus, the present petition before this Court.

Mr. Murali B.S., the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the basis for promotion from the post of Assistant Professor to the post of Associate Professor is seniority-cum-merit. Since the petitioner has already taught as Senior Resident, and since the said post is re-designated as Assistant Professor, he was more Senior than respondent No. 3. However, this aspect has escaped the notice of the Review Committee. Therefore, the Review Committee is not justified in concluding that the 3rd respondent happens to be most senior in the Department. Secondly, the finding given by the Medical Council of India that the petitioner is eligible for the post of Associate Professor is binding on the Review Committee and on the Board. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in denying promotion to the petitioner. Hence the decision of the Review Committee meeting dated 5.12.2014, and of the Board dated 16.12.2014 need to be interfered with by this Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order, and considered the records submitted by the petitioner.

Admittedly the basis for promotion is seniority-cum-merit. However, the Review Committee is not confined to a just look at the eligibility, but is also required to consider at the suitability of the candidate for the post of Associate Professor. A perusal of the proceedings of the Review Committee indicates that the Review Committee was of the view, that while respondent No. 3, Dr. Sathyanarayana T.P, had five years of teaching experience and four publications to his credit, the petitioner had merely four years of teaching experience and two publications. According to the chart given in the proceedings, the petitioner had four years of teaching experience from 13.1.2011, and had teaching experience as Assistant Professor of one year and 6 months from 2.9.2013; whereas - Dr. Sathyanarayana T.P. had 5 years of teaching experience from 2.3.2009. Moreover, he had four publications to his credit, whereas the petitioner had merely two publications to his credit. Furthermore, in the Institution seniority list Dr. Sathyanarayana T.P, was placed at Sl. No. 1, while the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 3. Even considering the personality of the two candidates, the Review Committee was of the opinion that Dr. Sathyanarayana T.P., had a better personality than the petitioner. Therefore, the Review Committee awarded 4 marks out of total of 6 marks to him, whereas the petitioner was awarded 2 marks out of 6 marks. After looking at the marks given to the two candidates Dr. Sathyanarayana T.P., had secured 6.5 marks out of 15 marks, whereas the petitioner had secured 2 marks out of 15 marks.

Even if the petitioner claims that he is more senior, and his teaching experience as Senior Resident should be taken into account, even then the petitioner cannot claim the right of being promoted to the aforesaid post. The merits of the two candidates goes to show that Dr. Sathyanarayana T.P. has published four publications, whereas the petitioner has merely two publications to his credit. Therefore, the Review Committee has found Dr. Sathyanarayana T.P., was more meritorious than the petitioner. Moreover, even personality-wise, he was more suitable than the petitioner. Thus, considering both the aspects i.e., eligibility and suitability, the Review Committee had found Dr. Sathyanarayana T.P., as more suitable for the post of Associate Professor than the petitioner. Hence, the Review Committee has correctly applied the yardstick for promoting the respondent No. 3 to the post of Associate Professor.

The recommendation of the Review Committee has been confirmed by the Board in its Committee Meeting dated 16.12.2014. Therefore, no illegality can be found in the order dated 16.12.2014.

As far as the opinion of the Medical Council of India is concerned, it is not binding either on the Review Committee, or on the Board. For, while the Medical Council of India may be of the opinion, that the petitioner is eligible for promotion, but it has not expressed any opinion about "the suitability" of the petitioner for the said promotion. The suitability of a candidate to a post can be adjudged only by the Review Committee which had the benefit of seeing the candidates and dealing with them. Therefore, the opinion expressed by the Medical Council of India need not be considered by the Board. The Board would obviously deal with the recommendation made by the Review Committee. Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is unacceptable.

Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.