1980 (3) TMI 272 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Claim for promotion to Supertime Grade II.
2. Validity of promotions of respondents 4 to 24.
3. Interpretation of Rule 8(3) of 1966 Rules.
4. Transfer of Dr. B.S. Jain and its legality.
5. Appellant's eligibility and refusal of the Simla post.
6. Alleged legal malice and creation of posts.
7. Validity of promotions of respondents 9 and 23.
8. Appellant's locus standi to challenge promotions.
9. Consequences of setting aside the promotion of Dr. P.C. Sen.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Claim for Promotion to Supertime Grade II:
The appellant, an ophthalmic surgeon, claimed he should have been promoted to Supertime Grade II from February 18, 1971. He argued that a post in Ophthalmology at Willingdon Hospital was created on that date, and he, being the seniormost and qualified, should have been promoted.

2. Validity of Promotions of Respondents 4 to 24:
The appellant challenged the promotions of respondents 4 to 24 to Supertime Grade II on various dates between February 1971 and July 17, 1978, arguing that these promotions violated Rule 8(3) of the 1966 Rules.

3. Interpretation of Rule 8(3) of 1966 Rules:
Rule 8(3) provides for recruitment to Supertime Grade II both by promotion and direct recruitment. The appellant contended that the post created in Supertime Grade II in Ophthalmology should have been filled by promotion from the Specialists' grade, not by transfer or direct recruitment.

4. Transfer of Dr. B.S. Jain and Its Legality:
The appellant argued that the transfer of Dr. B.S. Jain to the newly created post in Supertime Grade II at Willingdon Hospital was in violation of the statutory rule. He claimed that the post should have been filled by promotion from within the Specialists' grade.

5. Appellant's Eligibility and Refusal of the Simla Post:
The appellant refused the post of Chief Ophthalmologist-cum-Associate Professor of Ophthalmology at Himachal Pradesh Medical College, Simla, arguing that he was not qualified for the teaching post. The court found that his refusal was based on personal reasons rather than a lack of qualification.

6. Alleged Legal Malice and Creation of Posts:
The appellant alleged that the government created posts to accommodate certain individuals, ignoring the requirements of the hospital. The court found no evidence to support this claim, stating that the creation and abolition of posts is a matter of government policy and administrative necessity.

7. Validity of Promotions of Respondents 9 and 23:
The appellant contended that respondents 9 and 23 were ineligible for promotion due to adverse comments from the Madras High Court regarding their negligence. The court found that their promotions were approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the UPSC, and the appellant would not benefit from invalidating their promotions.

8. Appellant's Locus Standi to Challenge Promotions:
The court held that the appellant was not qualified to challenge the promotions of respondents 4 to 24, as they were promoted to posts in specialities other than ophthalmology, for which the appellant was not qualified.

9. Consequences of Setting Aside the Promotion of Dr. P.C. Sen:
The appellant argued that he should be considered for promotion from September 1971, when Dr. P.C. Sen's promotion was set aside. The court found no justification for this, noting that the appellant had refused a promotion to Simla and there was no material to show he was qualified for the post of Director of Health Services, Manipur.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, finding no substance in the appellant's contentions and holding that the promotions of respondents 4 to 24 were valid. The appellant's refusal to accept the Simla post was based on personal reasons, and there was no evidence of legal malice in the creation of posts. The appellant was not qualified to challenge the promotions of respondents 4 to 24, and there was no basis for considering him for promotion from September 1971. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.