The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed an appeal seeking to quash the order in which the claim of the petitioner seeking seniority over the respondent has been declined. The court ruled that the RIMS operates autonomously under the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 2002, promotions were granted to individuals holding substantive posts, and the Regulation of 2014 for determining seniority was applied non-retrospectively, resulting in a valid lower ranking for the appellant in the seniority list.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer and subsequently posted as a tutor in the Department of Anatomy, RIMS. She was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor and later to the post of Associate Professor. The respondent joined the service of the State Government in the Health Department and was posted as a tutor, then promoted to Assistant Professor and later to Associate Professor. The state of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand has published the seniority list in which the appellant was senior to the respondent. A Committee was constituted for the purpose of deciding seniority and by the recommendation of the committee RIMS issued an order in which respondent was senior to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the authorities' action, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the appellant was senior to the respondent while working in the capacity of Medical Officer under the State Government and since the lien was there with the post of Medical Officer, the position of seniority held by the appellant and the respondent will remain in operative and the lien is with the state Government, RIMS has got no jurisdiction to change the position of seniority or take any decision which will be detrimental to the interest of the appellant.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent contended that if an employee is holding a ‘lien’ of a post and subsequent thereto if such employee is being appointed by way of fresh recruitment, then the ‘lien’ of the erstwhile employer will stand terminated automatically. It is further contended that there is no provision under the statute to fill up the post by way of promotion, hence, it cannot be said to be correct as is being submitted that the appointment was made by way of promotion rather it is by way of direct recruitment as per the mandate of Section 11 of the RIMS Act, 2002 as also advertisement was issued for the said purpose which is only for the purpose of filling the post by way of direct recruitment.
Observations of the court:
The court observed that the RIMS, formerly known as Rajendra Medical College and Hospital, was initially under the control of the State Government. However, to grant autonomy to this institution, the State introduced the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 2002 (Act 10 of 2002) and this Act granted autonomous status to RIMS, limiting the State's involvement in its day-to-day operations, except for certain oversight responsibilities outlined in Section 29 of the Act, 2002. The Court conducted a detailed examination of this Act and explained that RIMS no longer operated under the direct control of the State Government and it was to be governed according to the statutory provisions set forth in the Act, 2002 and the Regulation, 2014. The State's authority was restricted to ensuring that RIMS adhered to policy decisions aimed at the welfare of the people of Jharkhand, as determined by the State government.
The court emphasized a well-established legal principle that promotions to higher positions are granted only to those holding substantive posts. In this case, the promotion granted to the appellant and respondent No. 4 was coupled with the continuation of their service, confirming that their services were under the regular establishment of the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS). The Court further observed that Rule 68 of the Service Code, which clearly states that the 'lien' on the earlier post ceases to exist the moment a government servant joins their service in a substantive capacity on a permanent post. Therefore, the Court concluded that the appellant's and respondent's services were indeed under the regular establishment of RIMS, and the argument regarding the temporary nature of their appointments was not valid.
The court examined the Regulation of 2014, which provided the basis for determining seniority. It clarified that the Regulation's application was not retrospective, as it aimed to establish a system for seniority irrespective of the appointment date. The court further stated that the respondent was positioned at Serial No. 1 while the appellant was placed at Serial No. 2 in the merit list which was made after considering marks obtained by both the parties. Thus, The appellant's lower ranking in the seniority list relative to the respondent, based on the merit of their selection, was found to be in accordance with the law.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Dr. Kumari Sandhya vs. State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navneet Kumar
Case No.: L.P.A. No. 125 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Ms. Shreesha Sinha, Mr. Rohit Sinha
Advocate for the Respondent: Mrs. Amrita Banerjee, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Mr. Shivam Singh, Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Mr. Nilesh Modi, Mr. Ajit Kumar, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, Mr. Vishnu Kumar Mahto
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
