JUDGEMENT
L. Nageswara Rao, J. -
(1.) Leave granted.
1. The promotion of Respondent No.2 to the post of Assistant Professor (Ophthalmology) and further promotion to the post of Professor (Ophthalmology) was challenged by the Appellant before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal). The Tribunal set aside the orders of promotion of Respondent No.2 to the post of Assistant Professor and Professor (Ophthalmology). The Writ Petition filed by the Respondent No.2 against the judgment of the Tribunal was allowed, the legality of which is assailed in this Appeal.
(2.) The relevant facts for adjudication of the dispute are as follows:
The Appellant was appointed as Assistant Surgeon after being selected by the Karnataka Public Services Commission on 11th December, 1987 whereas Respondent No.2 was appointed as Assistant Surgeon on 10th September, 1991. Respondent No.2, along with 125 other Medical Officers and Assistant Surgeons, was posted in Health & Family Welfare Department as Lecturer on deputation basis by an Order dated 20th May, 1992. The conditions attached to the deputation made in public interest were that the appointment will not confer any right to change over as lecturing staff and that the deputation duty will not be counted for seniority in the Medical Education Department. The Appellant was permitted to change the cadre and was appointed as a Lecturer (Ophthalmology) on 10th November, 1999. By an Order dated 15th November, 1999 the Respondent No.2 was also permitted a change in the cadre to the post of Lecturer. It was mentioned in the said Order that the Respondent No.2 could not be absorbed as a Lecturer in the Department of Medical Education along with 115 other Doctors due to lack of a Post-Graduate Degree. It was further stated therein that Respondent No.2 was permitted by the Government to pursue a Post-Graduate Degree. The Order dated 15th November, 1999 will come into force after Respondent No.2 acquires a Post-Graduate Degree. The Respondent No.2 completed Post-Graduation after which she was appointed as a Lecturer on 18th May, 2001. She was promoted as Assistant Professor on 6th June, 2001. The Appellant challenged the said Order of promotion dated 6th June, 2001 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. During the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal, Respondent No.2 was further promoted as Professor (Ophthalmology) on 1st September, 2006. The Appellant was successful in her challenge before the Tribunal. The High Court reversed the Order of the Tribunal by allowing the Writ Petition filed by Respondent No.2.
(3.) The Tribunal held that Respondent No.2 was a beneficiary of undue benefits. The Tribunal found fault with the deputation of Respondent No.2 as a Lecturer on 14th September, 1991 in spite of the fact that Respondent No.2 did not possess a Post-Graduate Degree. The Government was criticized by the Tribunal for permitting a change in cadre to Respondent No.2 though she was ineligible. The promotion of Respondent No.2 as Assistant Professor on 6th June, 2001 was held to be illegal. On the basis of the above said findings, the Tribunal set aside the promotion of Respondent No.2 as Assistant Professor and Professor. The Government was directed by the Tribunal to consider the Appellant for promotion with effect from the date she became eligible.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.