9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the original application. 2. Counting of ad-hoc service towards seniority. 3. Appointment and qualifications for the post of Head of the Department of G.I. Surgery. 4. Tribunal's jurisdiction and directions regarding public interest and filling up posts. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Original Application: The petitioners and official respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the original application, arguing that necessary parties, such as the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and G.B. Pant Hospital, were not impleaded. Additionally, it was alleged that material facts were suppressed in the applications. The Tribunal did not address these objections in detail but proceeded to consider the substantive issues. 2. Counting of Ad-hoc Service Towards Seniority: The primary contention was whether the period during which the applicant served on an ad-hoc basis could be counted towards his seniority. The Union of India argued that the applicant's ad-hoc service could not be counted for seniority as his appointment letter explicitly stated that such service would not confer any claim or right for regular appointment or count towards seniority. The Tribunal, however, considered the public interest and patient care in government hospitals, emphasizing that the department of super-speciality should be entrusted to qualified and experienced faculty members. The High Court, referencing various Supreme Court judgments, concluded that seniority should be counted from the date of regularization, not from the date of ad-hoc appointment, as ad-hoc appointments are made as temporary arrangements and not in accordance with statutory rules. 3. Appointment and Qualifications for the Post of Head of the Department of G.I. Surgery: The applicant sought to be considered for the post of Head of the Department of G.I. Surgery, arguing that his continuous service from 1986 should be counted towards his seniority. The Tribunal noted that no post of Head of the Department existed under the recruitment rules and that the department should be managed by qualified faculty members. The High Court upheld that the appointment to such posts should follow the recruitment rules and that the Tribunal erred in directing the filling of the post of Director-Professor, as no such post existed or was sanctioned. 4. Tribunal's Jurisdiction and Directions Regarding Public Interest and Filling Up Posts: The Tribunal issued directions to the government to fill up the post of Director-Professor and Professor in the super-speciality of G.I. Surgery, considering public interest. The Union of India filed a review application, and the Tribunal modified its order to direct the filling of Assistant/Associate Professor posts instead. The High Court held that the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing directions beyond the scope of the original application and without providing an opportunity for the respondents to present their case. The High Court emphasized that the decision to fill a particular post lies within the employer's domain and that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is confined to the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Conclusion: The High Court allowed C.W.P. No. 2902 of 2001, setting aside the Tribunal's directions to fill up the post of Director-Professor, and dismissed C.W.P. No. 507 of 2001. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. The judgment clarified that ad-hoc service cannot be counted towards seniority and that the Tribunal cannot issue directions in the nature of public interest beyond its statutory jurisdiction.
|
