- (1.) The present writ has been filed by the petitioner with the allegations that vide order dated 11.7.1978, she was promoted as Reader, in the Pathology Department and at present is working as Associated Professor (Reader), in the said Department at S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur. For two posts of Professors in the Pathology Department for the year 1992-93, D.P.C. was met on 3.10.1992. Out of these two posts, one is to be filled by Seniority-cum-merit and another by merit. Dr. Mrs. Neelama Dhar is senior to the petitioner and as such the D.P.C. which met on 3.10.1992, recommended her name for promotion in the quota of seniority-cum-merit, whereas the name of the respondent No. 3 has been recommended in the merit quota, though the respondent No. 3 is junior to the petitioner. It has been further alleged that the respondent No. 3 is not even eligible for promotion for the said post as she did not received 'outstanding' or 'very good' C. Rs. atleast for five years out of seven years preceding the year for which the D.P.C. was held, whereas the petitioner has 'outstanding' or 'very good' record in atleast four out of seven years preceding the year for which the D.P.C. was held. It has been further alleged that in case both the candidates are not eligible for promotion on the basis of merit quota, then the petitioner being senior, has to be recommended for the post. The petitioner alleged that the respondent No. 4, Dr. M.L.Sharma, who was the Head of Department, had enmity with the petitioner since 1988. The reason being that the petitioner's son Dilip Ramrakhyani in M.B.B.S. Examination-Part I, secured 115 marks in Biochemistry, whereas the son of the respondent No. 4 secured only 114 marks and as such the petitioner's son was entitled for the gold medal on account of securing the highest marks in Biochemistry in the M.B.B.S. Part I Examination in the year 1987-88. Respondent No. 4, in order to give undue advantage to his son by misusing his official position got the name of his son Punk Sharma ambossed on the gold medal instead of the name of petitioner's son. When this fact was revealed, the petitioner as well as her son Dilip Ramrakhyani protested in writing to the respondent No. 2. After enquiry, the truth was revealed and on the embossed name of Punit Sharma on the Gold Medal, a plate was pasted and then the gold medal was given to Dr. Dilip Ramrakhyani and since then the respondent No. 4, Dr. M.L. Sharma started enemity with the petitioner and in the planned way he started to supersede the petitioner and deliberately and maliciously written the A. C. Rs. favouring resp. No. 3. The petitioner further alleged that respondent No. 4, Dr. Sharma, retired from service on 31.8.1992. The A.C.Rs. for the year 1991- 1992, were not filled and sent by him before retirement to the respondent No. 2, but were sent after 18.9.1992, and as such the A.C.Rs. for the year 1991-92, given by Dr. Sharma, respondent No. 4 should not have been taken into consideration by the D.P.C. on these grounds, the petitioner filed this writ petition and prayed that proceedings of D.RC. dated 3.10.1992, including its recommendations with regard to promotion on the post of Professor in the department of Pathology be quashed and set-aside and in the alternative, in case the respondent No. 3 is promoted, the same may also be set-aside.
(2.) On 20.10.1992, notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ be not admitted. After service, respondent No. 1 and 2 filed a joint reply in which they specifically denied that Dr. M. L.Sharma, respondent No. 4 submitted A.C.Rs. of the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 for the year 1991-92, after his retirement. They specifically mentioned that Dr. Sharma sent A.C.Rs. to the reviewing officer i.e. the respondent No. 2, on 20.8.1992, before his retirement. They further mentioned that it was not obligatory under any rule to despatch the A.C.Rs. by entering them in the despatch register. The letter written by the petitioner on 14.8.1992 (marked Annexure 4) to Dr. Kumud Gangwal is a forged letter and on the basis of that letter, it can not be presumed that respondent No. 4 sent the A.C.Rs. after his retirement. In para No. 16 of their reply, they denied the charge of malafide against the respondent No. 4 and further stated that the respondent No. 4 had given remark of 'very good' to the petitioner for the year 1991-92. They further alleged that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The recommendations of the D.P.C. cannot be reviewed by this Court as the same are not final and conclusive and further that the writ petition is premature.
(3.) The respondent No. 3 filed a separate written statement. In para No. 7, she has given a chart regarding academic record of the petitioner and herself to show that she is more meritorious in comparison to the petitioner. She further alleged in the reply that the petitioner did not disclose the name and source from where she obtained the information as mentioned in the writ petition. She denied the allegations regarding not proper consideration by the D.P.C. She also took pleas similar to the pleas taken by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their reply. It was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed with costs.;