Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Dr Surbhi Gupta vs Health And Medical Education ... on 16 March, 2026
:: 1 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 1754/2021 &
OA 776/2022
Reserved on: - 17.02.2026
Pronounced on: - 16.03.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. OA/1754/2021
1. Dr. Surbhi Gupta D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta R/o H.No. 35 B/D
Gandhi Nagar, Jammu - 180004 age 38 years.
...Applicant
(Advocate: Ms. D S Chauhan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Damini
Singh Chauhan)
Versus
1. Union Territory of J&K through Additional Chief Secretary Health
and Medical Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu -
180001.
2. Additional Chief Secretary Health and Medical Education
Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu - 180001.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022
3. Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission, Resham Garh
Colony, Jammu - 180001 through its Secretary.
4. Principal, Government Medical College, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu.
180001
5. Dr. Vijayta Gupta D/o Sh. Subash Chander Gupta W/o Dr. Anuj
Bhatti R/o 818/10, Rajpura Mangotrian Shakti Nagar, Jammu at
present Bhawani Kutir, Ramnik Vihar, Ward No.1 Kathua 184205
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Pranav Kohli, Mr. F A Natnoo, Mr. Sudesh Magotra,
ld. AAG)
2. OA/776/2022
1. Dr. Surbhi Gupta D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta R/o H.No. 35 B/D
Gandhi Nagar, Jammu - 180004 age 39 years.
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Ms. D S Chauhan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Damini
Singh Chauhan)
Versus
1. Union Territory of J&K through Principal Secretary Health and
Medical Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu -
180001.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022
2. Principal Secretary Health and Medical Education Department,
Civil Secretariat, Jammu - 180001.
3. Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission, Resham Garh
Colony, Jammu - 180001 through its Secretary.
4. Principal, Government Medical College, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu.
Pin code- 180001
5. Dr. Vijayta Gupta D/o Sh. Subash Chander Gupta W/o Dr. Anuj
Bhatti R/o 818/10, Rajpura Mangotrian Shakti Nagar, Jammu at
present Bhawani Kutir, Ramnik Vihar, Ward No.1 Kathua. Pin
Code- 184101
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Pranav Kohli, Mr. F A Natnoo, Mr. Sudesh Magotra,
ld. AAG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 4 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
1. OA/1754/2021
a) The applicant prays for quashment of Notice dated 6th May, 2021 whereby, the respondent No. 5 has been found to be eligible for her participation in the selection process in terms of Notification No. 08-PSC (DR-P) of 2019 dated 20- 05-2019 for the Post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology despite being in eligible and with further quashment of the recommendation by way of Select List as issued by the respondent No. 3 for the Post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology in Government Medical College/Srinagar in (Health and Medical Education Department) vide Notification No. 88- PSC (DR-S) of 2021 Dated 03-11-2021 in total violation of Advertisement Notification No. 08-PSC (DR-R) of 2019 Dated 20-05-2019 HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022 whereby respondent No. 5 has been selected over and above the merit of the petitioner, as such, the Select List issued vide Notification No. 88-PSC (DR-S) of 2021 Dated 03-11-2021 issued by the respondent No.3 is also liable to be struck down;
b) Further appropriate order or direction commanding the respondents No. 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner for the Post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology being eligible and having higher merit position of the petitioner, over and above the respondent No. 5 as issued in terms of Notification No.88- PSC (DR-S) of 2021 Dated 03-11-2021 and further issue an Order of selection of the petitioner for the Post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology;
c) With further appropriate direction or order prohibiting the respondents No. 1 and 2 to issue Select List in favour of respondent No. 5 as per the recommendation made by the respondent No. 3 in favour of the respondent No. 5 in terms of Notification No.88-PSC (DR-S) of 2021 Dated 03-11-2021;
d) With further appropriate order or direction commanding the respondents No. 1 to 4 to hold an enquiry about the in eligibility of the respondent No. 5 on the basis of an Affidavit HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022 dated 11th July, 2017 duly attested by the Magistrate 1st Class Jammu, filed before the respondent No. 4 stating therein on oath that the respondent No. 5 has not done any Registrar ship/ Demonstrator ship/ Sr. Residency in any discipline previously anywhere within or outside the state and still how and on what documents the candidature of respondent No. 5 for the post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology has not only been considered but has further been selected by the respondent No. 3 in terms of Notification No. 88-PSC (DR-S) of 2021 Dated 03-11-2021 or Such other order, which this hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case;
2. OA/776/2022
a) The applicant prays for quashment of the select list as issued by the respondent No. 3, for the Post of Lecturer in Government Medical College Jammu / Srinagar in (Health and Medical Education Department) vide Notification No. 07-PSC (DR-S) of 2022 Dated 30-05-2022 whereby the selection of respondent No.5 has been made despite being ineligible for the post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology and the very eligibility of the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022 respondent No. 5 is already subject matter of the petition titled "Dr. Surbhi Gupta v. Union Territory of J&K and Ors." bearing O.A./1754/2021 pending before this hon'ble Tribunal whereby after admission of the said petition vide order dated 24th Nov, 2021, the recommendation by way of select list as issued by respondent No. 3 for the post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology in Government Medical College in Health and Medical Education Department issued vide Notification No. 88- PSC (DR-S) of 2021 Dated 03-11-2021 has already been stayed by this honʼble Tribunal and yet on the same eligibility of the respondent No. 5, the respondent No. 3 has issued the Notification impugned No. 07-PSC (DR-S) of 2022 Dated 30- 05-2022 in favour of the respondent No. 5 as such, the same is liable to be struck down.
b) Further appropriate order or direction commanding the respondents No. 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner for the Post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology being eligible and having higher merit position of the petitioner, over and above the respondent No. 5 as issued in terms of Notification No. 07- PSC (DR-S) of HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022 2022 Dated 30-05-2022 and further issue an order of selection of the petitioner for the Post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology;
c) With further appropriate direction or order prohibiting the respondents No. 1 and 2 to issue Select List in favour of respondent No. 5 as per the recommendation made by the respondent No. 3 in favour of the respondent No. 5 in terms of Notification No. 07-PSC (DR-S) of 2022 Dated 30-05- 2022;
d) In the alternative directing the respondents No. 1 to 3 to consider the case of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 5 on the basis of merit position obtained by the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 as per both the Notifications i.e., Notification No. 88-PSC (DR-S) of 2021 Dated 03-11-2021 and Notification No. 07-PSC (DR-S) of 2022 dated 30-05-2022, for their selection to the Post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology so that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 on account of their merit position secured in both the selection process are adjusted to the Post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology Government Medical College, Jammu Department of Health and Medical, so as to give quietus to the litigation, pending interse the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022 petitioner and respondents before this hon'ble Tribunal and also to advance the cause of justice or such other order, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case;
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in her pleadings are as follows: -
a) The applicant, Dr. Surbhi Gupta, is a domicile of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and claims to be eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology in Government Medical College, Jammu/Srinagar.
b) The Health and Medical Education Department referred one post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology under the Open Merit category to the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (JKPSC) for selection of a suitable candidate.
Pursuant to this reference, the JKPSC issued Advertisement Notification No. 08-PSC (DR-P) of 2019 dated 20.05.2019 inviting applications for various Lecturer posts in Government Medical Colleges, including the discipline of Ophthalmology.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 10 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022
As per the advertisement, the essential qualification for the post was M.S. (Ophthalmology)/FRCS with a minimum of two years' teaching experience as Registrar, Tutor, Demonstrator, or Senior Resident in a recognized teaching medical institution recognized by the Medical Council of India or the University of Jammu/Kashmir. Experience gained during postgraduate studies was not to be counted for eligibility.
c) The applicant, claiming to fulfill the prescribed qualifications, applied for the said post and submitted her academic details, publications, and other supporting documents. After scrutiny of application forms, the Commission issued a notice dated 06.05.2021 declaring certain candidates ineligible while permitting others, including respondent No.5 (Dr. Vijayta Gupta), to participate in the selection process.
d) According to the applicant, respondent No.5 was not eligible for the post because she had earlier submitted an affidavit dated 11.07.2017 before the Principal, Government Medical College, Jammu stating that she had not previously worked as Registrar, Demonstrator, or Senior Resident anywhere within or outside HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022 the State. The applicant contends that this affidavit shows that respondent No.5 did not possess the requisite teaching experience as on the relevant cut-off date prescribed in the advertisement notification.
e) The selection process thereafter proceeded and interviews for the post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology were conducted by the JKPSC on 02.08.2021 and 03.08.2021. After completion of the process, the Commission issued Notification No. 88-PSC (DR- S) of 2021 dated 03.11.2021 recommending respondent No.5 for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology under the Open Merit category. In the select list, respondent No.5 secured 69.01 marks while the applicant secured 67.01 marks and was placed at the second position.
f) The applicant alleges that respondent No.5 was wrongly awarded marks for teaching experience, publications, and books which she allegedly did not possess. According to the applicant, respondent No.5 was awarded marks for publications and books that were either not published or not available in the public domain, and was also granted marks for teaching experience HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022 despite allegedly lacking the requisite eligibility. The applicant further contends that she herself was not awarded one mark under the "Gold Medal/Best Graduate" category despite having secured the highest position in MBBS/MD from the University of Jammu.
g) Aggrieved by the selection of respondent No.5, the applicant filed O.A. No. 1754/2021 before this Tribunal challenging the notice dated 06.05.2021 and the select list issued vide Notification dated 03.11.2021 recommending respondent No.5 for appointment. On 24.11.2021, this Tribunal admitted the application and stayed the operation of the select list insofar as it related to respondent No.5.
h) During the pendency of the said application, the JKPSC issued another advertisement notification bearing No. 12-PSC (DR-P) of 2021 dated 14.12.2021 for filling additional posts of Lecturer in various disciplines including Ophthalmology. The applicant again participated in the selection process along with respondent No.5. After completion of the process, the Commission issued Notification No. 07-PSC (DR-S) of 2022 HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022 dated 30.05.2022 whereby respondent No.5 was again selected for the post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology.
i) The applicant contends that the eligibility of respondent No.5 was already under challenge before this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1754/2021 and the earlier selection had already been stayed, yet the Commission proceeded to select respondent No.5 again on the basis of the same allegedly disputed eligibility. Consequently, the applicant filed O.A. No. 776/2022 challenging the second selection notification dated 30.05.2022 as well.
j) The applicant submits that respondent No.5 could not have been considered eligible as she did not possess the requisite two years' teaching experience as on the relevant cut-off date and that the marks awarded to respondent No.5 in the selection process were arbitrary and inflated. The applicant further submits that since she was placed second in the merit list in both selections, she ought to have been considered for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 14 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The official respondents and the private respondent have filed separate replies opposing the applications.
b) The respondents have raised preliminary objections that the application involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings before this Tribunal. It is further contended that the applicant has no locus standi to challenge the selection and that the application is liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts.
c) The official respondents submit that the Health and Medical Education Department had referred one post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology to the Public Service Commission for selection of a suitable candidate, pursuant to which the Commission issued Advertisement Notification No. 08-PSC (DR-P) of 2019 dated 20.05.2019 inviting applications from eligible candidates.
After scrutiny of applications, eligible candidates were interviewed with the assistance of subject experts and the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022 provisional select list was issued on 03.11.2021 in accordance with the Business and Procedure Rules of the Commission.
d) It is further stated that the applicant had secured 67.01 marks while respondent No.5 secured 69.01 marks and was accordingly placed at the top of the merit list. The selection was made strictly on the basis of overall performance including academic merit, experience, publications, special attributes, and interview.
e) With regard to the allegation that respondent No.5 lacked the required teaching experience, the respondents submit that the last date for submission of applications was extended up to 25.10.2019 and respondent No.5 had submitted an experience certificate showing teaching experience of two years, two months, and seven days as Registrar on academic arrangement basis with effect from 18.08.2017 in Government Medical College, Jammu. Therefore, respondent No.5 fulfilled the prescribed eligibility requirement of two years' experience.
f) The respondents further submit that marks for publications, books, and other special attributes were assessed by subject HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022 experts in accordance with the applicable criteria and the assessment of such attributes falls within the domain of expert bodies, which cannot ordinarily be interfered with by the Tribunal.
g) The private respondent (respondent No.5) has also denied the allegations made by the applicant and submits that the affidavit dated 11.07.2017 relied upon by the applicant was furnished in response to an earlier advertisement for the post of Registrar and was confined to the position as on that date. It is stated that the affidavit was required under the terms of the advertisement which barred candidates who had completed three years of Registrar/Demonstrator service from applying. The affidavit therefore merely indicated that respondent No.5 had not completed such tenure at that time and does not render her ineligible for the post of Lecturer subsequently.
h) It is further submitted that respondent No.5 subsequently worked as Registrar from 18.08.2017 onwards and acquired the required teaching experience well before the extended cut-off date for the Lecturer post. The respondents therefore contend HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 17 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022 that respondent No.5 fully satisfied the eligibility criteria and was rightly selected on merit.
i) The respondents also state that the applicant had earlier submitted representations challenging the selection of respondent No.5, which were duly examined and rejected by the competent authorities through detailed orders dated 16.11.2021 and 23.11.2021. According to the respondents, the applicant has deliberately concealed these rejection orders from the Tribunal.
j) On these grounds, the respondents contend that the selection of respondent No.5 was conducted strictly in accordance with the rules and the applicant has failed to demonstrate any illegality or arbitrariness in the selection process. The respondents accordingly pray for dismissal of the Original Applications.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. These two Original Applications arise out of two separate selections for the post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology under two different HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 18 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022 notifications, but the contest in both matters is substantially between the same two candidates, namely, the applicant Dr. Surbhi Gupta and private respondent Dr. Vijayta Gupta. Therefore, both matters are being decided together.
7. The principal grievance of the applicant in OA No. 1754/2021 is that respondent No. 5 was not eligible under Notification No. 08-PSC (DR-P) of 2019 and yet she was selected vide Notification No. 88- PSC (DR-S) of 2021 dated 03.11.2021. The main foundation of the challenge is the affidavit dated 11.07.2017 allegedly submitted by respondent No. 5 at the time of her engagement as Registrar. According to the applicant, once respondent No. 5 had declared in that affidavit that she had not previously done Registrarship/Demonstratorship/Senior Residency, she could not have possessed the minimum required experience of two years for the Lecturer post.
8. This argument, though attractive at first sight, does not withstand closer scrutiny. The pleadings of the official respondents as well as of respondent No. 5 clearly show that the last date for determining eligibility was extended up to 25.10.2019, and respondent No. 5 had HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 19 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022 produced an experience certificate showing 2 years, 2 months and 7 days of experience on academic arrangement basis with effect from 18.08.2017. The Commission has specifically taken this stand in its reply and has justified the eligibility of respondent No. 5 on that basis.
9. The affidavit of July 2017 cannot be read in isolation or torn out of its context. From the reply of respondent No. 5, it is evident that the affidavit was furnished in connection with appointment/engagement as Registrar under a separate process and had to be understood in the context of the eligibility conditions applicable there. More importantly, that affidavit only reflected the factual position as it existed on the date it was sworn. It did not freeze the service career of respondent No. 5 for all times to come. Once respondent No. 5 started working as Registrar from 18.08.2017 and continued thereafter, she obviously gained experience with the passage of time. Therefore, merely because she gave an affidavit in July 2017, it cannot be presumed that she remained without the required experience on the later cut-off date in October 2019.
10. This Tribunal is also not persuaded to hold that the Commission ignored any obvious disqualification. The Commission considered the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 20 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022 objections filed by the applicant and rejected them through notices issued prior to the filing of the proceedings. The Commission has further stated that the selected candidate secured higher overall merit, namely 69.01 marks, whereas the applicant secured 67.01 marks. The teaching experience and special attributes were assessed by the competent expert body. In service jurisprudence, the Court or Tribunal does not sit as an appellate expert over academic assessment unless mala fides, patent illegality, or clear violation of rules is shown. Mere suspicion about the manner of award of marks is not enough to unsettle a completed selection.
11. The challenge to the marks awarded to respondent No. 5 on account of publications, books and experience also does not justify interference in OA No. 1754/2021. The applicant has questioned the correctness of those marks, but the record as pleaded by the Commission shows that the assessment was made by the experts on the basis of documents produced before them. Unless the assessment is shown to be contrary to the notified criteria on the face of the record, the Tribunal ought to exercise restraint. Selection cannot be quashed merely because the unsuccessful candidate believes that some HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 21 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022 marks should have been differently awarded. Judicial review is directed against illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety; it is not a re-evaluation exercise.
12. Accordingly, this Tribunal finds no sufficient ground to invalidate the selection of respondent No. 5 made under Notification No. 88-PSC (DR-S) of 2021 dated 03.11.2021. The selection of respondent No. 5 under the first notification is therefore liable to be upheld.
13. That brings us to OA No. 776/2022, which stands on a somewhat different footing.
14. In this second OA, the applicant challenges the subsequent selection made vide Notification No. 07-PSC (DR-S) of 2022 dated 30.05.2022, again in favour of the same respondent No. 5. Here, an important fact emerges from the pleadings themselves: there were two separate notifications, each relating to a post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology, and in both selections respondent No. 5 stood first while the applicant stood second in merit. The applicant has specifically pleaded that if respondent No. 5 is treated as validly selected, then at the highest she can occupy only one post, and the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 22 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022 applicant, being next in merit, should be considered for the other post so as to bring quietus to the dispute.
15. This submission deserves acceptance.
16. A candidate can certainly participate in more than one selection if otherwise eligible. A candidate may also be selected in more than one process. But ultimately, such candidate can hold only one appointment/post at a time. Once respondent No. 5 is held entitled to appointment against the post covered by the first selection, the second selection in her favour cannot be allowed to operate in a manner that leaves the second notified vacancy unfilled or deprives the next meritorious candidate of consideration. Public posts are not meant to remain blocked merely because the same candidate has topped more than one list. The purpose of recruitment is to fill vacancies with eligible meritorious candidates, not to create a deadlock in the process.
17. The Tribunal is conscious that normally appointment is to be made strictly as per the select list and notified rules. But where the same candidate stands selected against two separate recruitment notifications for the same post and can only join one, then fairness, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 23 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022 administrative logic, and the principles of equal opportunity require that the vacancy arising in the second selection be offered to the next candidate in order of merit, provided there is no legal bar and the candidate is otherwise eligible. Such a course does not amount to rewriting the selection. Rather, it gives meaningful effect to the very merit list drawn by the recruiting agency.
18. The respondents themselves have not disputed that in both selections the applicant stood immediately below respondent No. 5. Thus, once respondent No. 5 is treated as validly selected under the first notification, there remains no justification to deny consideration and appointment to the applicant against the second notified post. Denial of such relief would result in avoidable injustice, multiplicity of proceedings, and wastage of a duly conducted recruitment process. On the other hand, granting such relief causes prejudice to none. Respondent No. 5 retains her appointment under the first selection. The applicant gets appointment against the second post for which she stood next in merit. The State gets both posts filled through the same completed selection exercises. This is the most equitable and legally workable outcome in the peculiar facts of the present case.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 24 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022
19. This Tribunal is therefore of the considered view that:
the challenge to the eligibility and first selection of respondent No. 5 in OA No. 1754/2021 is liable to fail; however the applicant in OA No. 776/2022, is entitled to appointment against the post covered by the second notification, once respondent No. 5 is adjusted against the post arising out of the first notification.
20. This course alone balances merit, fairness and public interest.
21. Accordingly, both the Original Applications are disposed of in the following manner:
(i) OA No. 1754/2021
The Original Application is dismissed. The selection/recommendation of respondent No. 5, namely Dr. Vijayta Gupta, made pursuant to Notification No. 88-PSC (DR-S) of 2021 dated 03.11.2021, is upheld. The interim order, if any, operating against the said selection shall stand vacated. The official respondents shall proceed to treat respondent No. 5 as validly selected/appointed against the post covered by the first notification.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 25 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022 (ii) OA No. 776/2022
a) The Original Application is allowed.
b) It is ordered that since respondent No. 5 has already been held entitled to appointment against the post covered by Notification No. 88-PSC (DR-S) of 2021 dated 03.11.2021, she cannot be adjusted against the second notified post also.
c) Consequently, the respondents are directed to appoint the applicant Dr. Surbhi Gupta against the post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology covered by Notification No. 07-PSC (DR-S) of 2022 dated 30.05.2022, provided the applicant is otherwise eligible and suffers from no disqualification.
d) Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date a copy of this order is served upon the respondents.
e) The appointment of the applicant shall relate back to the date on which appointment pursuant to the second notification ought to have been made. However, the applicant shall be entitled to notional seniority and continuity of service from that date.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 26 :: OA 1754/2021 & OA 776/2022 She shall be entitled to monetary benefits only from the date she actually joins pursuant to this order.
22. It is made clear that this order has been passed in the peculiar facts of the case where the same candidate stood selected against two separate notifications for substantially the same post, while the applicant stood next in merit in both selections. This order shall not be treated as a general direction applicable in all cases irrespective of their facts.
23. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV