1982 (12) TMI 224 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of Specialist Grade II for appointment or promotion as Professor or Associate Professor.
2. Interpretation of Sub-rules (2) and (2A) of Rule 8 and paragraphs 2(b) and 3 of Annexure I to the Second Schedule of the Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules, 1966.
3. Consideration of teaching experience gained in an ex-officio capacity.
4. Denial of equal opportunity in matters of employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of Specialist Grade II for Appointment or Promotion as Professor or Associate Professor:
The appeal questions whether a Specialist Grade II in a teaching hospital within the Central Health Service is eligible for appointment or promotion as a Professor or Associate Professor. The court analyzed the structure and rules of the Central Health Service, noting that Specialist Grade II officers can be promoted to Specialist Grade I and Supertime Grade II. The court emphasized that the recruitment rules do not explicitly prevent Specialist Grade II officers from being promoted to teaching positions if they meet the necessary qualifications and experience.

2. Interpretation of Sub-rules (2) and (2A) of Rule 8 and Paragraphs 2(b) and 3 of Annexure I to the Second Schedule:
The court examined the Central Health Service Rules, particularly Sub-rules (2) and (2A) of Rule 8 and paragraphs 2(b) and 3 of Annexure I to the Second Schedule. Rule 8(2) mandates that vacancies in the Specialists' Grade be filled by direct recruitment through the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). However, Rule 8(2A) provides an exception for Associate Professors and Assistant Professors, allowing their appointment through a Departmental Promotion Committee. The court interpreted the word "as" in these provisions to mean "in the capacity of," indicating that teaching experience gained in any capacity should be considered.

3. Consideration of Teaching Experience Gained in an Ex-officio Capacity:
The appellant had substantial teaching experience as a Radiologist-cum-Associate Professor of Radiology (ex-officio) in the Irwin Hospital. The court found that the teaching experience gained in this capacity should count towards the requisite teaching experience for promotion. The court noted that the Central Health Service rules do not stipulate that teaching experience must be gained through a regular appointment, thus the appellant's ex-officio teaching experience should be valid.

4. Denial of Equal Opportunity in Matters of Employment Under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution:
The appellant argued that the Government of India's decision to disregard his teaching experience was a denial of equal opportunity in employment, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court found merit in this argument, stating that the Ministry of Health's interpretation of the rules was incorrect and discriminatory. The court emphasized that the appellant had the requisite qualifications and teaching experience, and thus was eligible for consideration for the post of Associate Professor.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the Government of India's order and declaring that the appellant had the requisite teaching experience as per the relevant rules. The court directed the Union Public Service Commission to re-advertise the post of Professor of Radiology and consider the appellant for the position. The judgment ensures that Specialist Grade II officers with valid teaching experience are not unjustly excluded from promotion opportunities in teaching positions.