- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. In the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner, a Master of Surgery from Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, was appointed as Medical. Officer (Surgery) in Sir Sunder Lal Hospital of the said University through an appointment let ter dated 4/7th September, 1991 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition ). The petitioner joined the said permanent and substantive post in the said Hospital on 7. 9. 1991 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition ). The appointment of the petitioner was confirmed by letter dated 11. 8. 1993 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) with effect from 8. 9. 1992. The petitioner was asked to work as Medical Officer (Casuality) in the Casuality Department of the Hospital. Though the petitioner is specialist in Surgery but even after his con firmation the petitioner was compelled to serve in the Casuality department. The petitioner's appointment in specialised sub ject could not be utilised in the Casuality Deptt. The petitioner had made successive representations on 23. 4. 1994 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition), 11. 5. 1994 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) and 31. 5. 1994 (An-nexure 7 to the writ petition) in vain. On these background the petitioner, has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to post the petitioner in the department of Surgery or to any of its Units and to allow the petitioner to exploit his surgical skill.
(2.) IN the counter-affidavit the respon dent, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, has pleaded that in the advertisement dated 20. 5. 1990 (Annexure CA1) the recruitment was sought to be made in the post with designation of the Medical Officer. The ad vertisement never specified any designation as Medical Officer (Surgery ). Since the qualification of the Medical Officer recruited was one or the other of the dif ferent specialities as specified there in, the petitioner having one of such specialities were so indicated after the actual designa tion, his designation Medical Officer (Surgery) was indicated. But infact, the same did not connote any special meaning. According to the respondents there is no post of Medical Officer (Surgery) in S. S. Hospital ( here in after referred to as Hospi tal ). The said Hospital and the INstitute of Medical Sciences are two different units having two different kind of establishment and management. The department of Surgery is a Teaching department under the INstitute of Medical Sciences (INstitute for short ). The petitioner having been ap pointed in the Hospital he cannot claim his appointment in the INstitute. The petitioner may apply for the appointment in the IN stitute if occasion so arises. The work per formed by the petitioner in the Casuality department consists both of clinical as well as administrative work. The petitioner was not appointed as a specialist. The specialists are appointed in the INstitute as Professor, Readers and Lecturers. By filing supplementary counter-af fidavit the respondents has elaborated the contentions made in the counter-affidavit to the extent that the surgical operation of the patients lies with in the domain of Lec turers, Processors and Readers of the In stitute of Medical Sciences. Specialist sur-gial services are rendered only by the Lec turers, Professorsand Readers of the In stitute. The Hospital, as a matter of policy, has entrusted the surgical and other medical services provided in the Hospital to the Professors, Readers and Lecturers in the interest of the patients as it is felt that only persons with necessary expertise, knowledge and experience as verified by the Selection Committee, for the said posts should only handle the surgical, medical and other services of the indoor patients. The petitioner, if he so desires, he is free to face the Selection Committee for the selection of consultants teachers, who are entrusted with surgical work of the hospital. The Col lege of Medical Sciences, under the Univer sity, was established in the year 1960. In the year 1977 it was redesignated as Institute of Medical Sciences. Since then substantive posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers are required to render services to the patients and teaching of medical students. There is no post of Medical Officer in the Department of Surgery since the inception of the College of Medical Sciences in the year 1960. By means of Supplementary Af fidavit (1) the respondent contends that the petitioner is a non- teaching staff appointed in the Hospital. He is neither a teacher nor a Resident Doctor. Therefore, he is not en titled to treat Indoor patients and perform surgery. By means of letter dated 9. 9. 1996 (Annexure SA 1 to the Supplementary af fidavit) addressed to the Deputy Registrar (Administration of the University, the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital ex plained the position to the extent that the Medical Officer is competent to perform only such duties as is enumerated in para 1. 3 of the Office Procedure Manual framed by the University. These administrative duties have been duly approved by the Executive Council vide resolution No. 202 adopted in its meeting held on 2/3rd August 1984 (An nexure SA-2 ). By reasons of the provisions contained in the Manual the petitioner has to perform his duties as enumerated there in. No Medical Officer of the Hospital per form surgery. The petitioner was not recruited under Statute 27 of the Statutes framed by the University. Therefore, he can not claim himself to be a Member of the Teaching Faculty of the Department of Surgery, run under the Institute of Medical Sciences. Therefore the petitioner cannot claim relief, as prayed for in the present writ petition. It is further stated that Dr. S. P. Pandey is also holding Post Graduate De gree in Surgery. There is no post of Medical Officer (Surgery) in the Hospital.
(3.) SUPPLEMENTARY counter-affidavit (II) was filed on behalf of the respondents in order to contend that the Institute and the Hospital are two separate establishments with two separate controlling officers. As a matter of policy the Hospital staff treats the patients in the Casuality Department where the patients are admitted for a short period. Whenever any specialised treatment is necessary the same is done in the Indoor department of the Hospital by the Profes sors, Readers and Lecturers of the Institute. The same is the matter of internal ad ministration of the Hospital itself. In the rejoinder-affidavit the petitioner reiterated the statements made in the writ petition. In the said rejoinder affidavit several letters of appointment given to some doctors were annexed but the same does not help the petitioner materially inasmuch as in each of these appointments it was indicated that these were subject to the Statutes, Rules and Regulations etc.;