Patna High Court
Dr. Ramesh Chandra vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 7 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996(2)BLJR1227
JUDGMENT S.N. Jha, J.
1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the decision of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Annexure-9, in the matter of determination of his seniority vis-a-vis respondent No. 3 and appointment/promotion to the posts of Associate Professor/Professor in the Department of Neuro Surgery, and the consequential notifications, Annexures 10 and 11. He also seeks a mandamus to treat his so called 'ad hoc' appointment to the post of Associate Professor as regular and to promote him to the post of Professor in the said Department. The dispute has a long chequered career. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are as follows.
2. The petitioner after doing his M.B.B.S. joined the then Prince of Wales Medical College, Patna, as Demonstrator in the Department of Anatomy. In 1965 he was granted study leave for two years. He did M.S. in General Surgery and thereafter M.Ch. in Neuro Surgery in 1967. After serving the Christian Medical College, Vellore for sometime, he went abroad. He returned to India in 1973. By that time the Prince of Wales Medical College, Patna, had been taken over by the State Government. As, perhaps, he was not continuing in the employment in the said College and his leave had expired long time back, his name was not include in the list of employees submitted to the Government at the time of take over. He jointed Kauri Holy Family Hospital, a private hospital, in March 1973. His services were terminated by the management of the said Hospital in December 1978. In the meantime, on January 18, 1974 he had submitted his joining in the Patna Medical College. The joining report was forwarded to the Government. On June 29, 1981, he was absorbed in the Bihar Health Service as a Tutor in the Department of Anatomy with effect from May 29, 1971 i.e. from the date of take over of the College. His name was later forward to the Medical Council of India for its opinion regarding his eligibility for appointment against teaching post in Neuro Surgery. On receipt of the concurrence from the Medical Council, on March 10, 1983, a post of Associate Professor in the Department of Neuro Surgery was created and on April 27, 1983 he was appointed to the post on ad hoc basis in anticipation of the concurrence of the Bihar Public Service Commission.
3. Dr. Narbadeshwar Prasad Sinha and Dr. R.P. Choudhury, respondent No. 3 herein, challenged the appointment of the petitioner both as Tutor in the Department of Antomy, with retrospective effect, and Associate Professor in the Department of Neuro Surgery by way of writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 1815 of 1993 in this Court. By virtue of interim orders passed in the said writ petition the notification appointing the petitioner as Associate Professor, Neuro Surgery, was not acted upon. The writ petition was disposed of by two separate but concurring judgments on May 31, 1993. In view of the stand of the State that the said two writ petitioners had also been considered and found fit for promotion as Associate Professors on ad hoc basis during the pendency of the case, the writ petition was held to have become infructuous one of the Learned Judges observed in the order that it will be open to the State Government to issue the notification. The other learned Judge gave a positive direction for issue of appointment letters in favour of all the three i.e. including the petitioner and respondent No. 3 simultaneously. Accordingly, on June 3, 1983 Notification No. 683 (1) was issued cancelling the aforesaid notification dated April 27,1983 and appointing all the three contestants as Associate Professor on ad hoc basis. While the former was posted in Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi, the latter two were posted in Patna Medical College. The petitioner was shown at serial No. 3, It was, however, made clear that mentioning of names in the particular order would not affect their inter se seniority.
4. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid judgment of this Court in S.L.P. No. 4871 (Civil) of the 1984 in the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the S.L.P. on January 24, 1991 the State Government issued a notification making the ad hoc promotion/appointment of the three persons regular. In the said notification Dr. Narbadeshwar Prasad Sinha was shown at serial No. 1 followed by Dr. R.P. Choudhury and Dr. Ramesh Chandra in that order of seniority. While the former two were shown as promoted, the latter i.e. Dr. Ramesh Chandra was shown as directly recruited to the post.
5. The abovementioned special leave petition (giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 4023 of 1991) was disposed of on September 27, 1991 in the following terms:
Leave granted. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and having regard to the subsequent events resulting into the appointment of the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5, we find that the dispute which requires determination relates to seniority only. It appears that the State Government has by its notification dated 24th January 1991 determined the inter se seniority of the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. are of the opinion that the question relating to seniority should be decided by the High Court. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court for determining the question of seniority of the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5....
6. In the meantime, the post of Professor, Neuro Surgery, in the Patna Medical College, fell vacant on the superannuation of Dr. H.R.P. Verma on May 1, 1990. Dr. Narbadeshwar Prasad Sinha, who was posted in the Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi, also retired from service. At that stage, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C 3596 of 1990 in this Court to retrain the State of Bihar from issuing any notification and/or allowing respondent No. 3 herein to assume the office of the Head of the Neuro Surgery Department. He filed yet another writ petition being C.W.J.C. 5956 of 1991 for quashing the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee recommending respondent No. 3 for appointment as Professor and Head of the Department, as also for a mandamus to appoint him as Professor and Head of Neuro Surgery Department in the Patna Medical College. The latter writ petition was disposed of earlier in point of time on December 6, 1991. In as much as the Government was yet to take a decision and make the appointment, the Court declined to grant any relief but gave him the opportunity to challenge any adverse order that the State Government may pass in the matter. Respondent No. 3, who had already been held senior to the petitioner and had been recommended by the D.P.C and was holding current charge of the post, was finally promoted to the post of Professor by notification dated August 1, 1992 with effect from May 1, 1990, when the post had fallen vacant. The petitioner challenged the said notification by amendment in C.W.J.C. 3596 of 1990 which was still pending.
7. It is worth-mentioning here that C.W.J.C 1815 of 1983 which by reason of I the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4023 of 1991 had revived, I was in the meantime dismissed as withdrawn on April 22, 1992, on the I statement made on behalf of the petitioners of that writ petition, including respondent No. 3 herein, that "they do not purpose to press the writ application and want to withdraw the same."
8. CW.J.C. No. 3596 of 1990 was disposed of on August 19, 1992. The notification dated August 1, 1992 promoting respondent No. 3 was quashed and the matter was remitted back to the State Government for fresh disposal. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, accordingly, considered the claims of the parties. In his impugned decision, Annexure-9 dated November 18, 1992, he has held that all the three contestants including Dr. Narbadeshwar Prasad Sinha (since superannuated) possess the necessary eligibility for appointment/promotion as Associate Professor; (b) Dr. Narbadeshwar Prasad Sinha acquired the eligibility on September 29, 1981 and became eligible for promotion to the post of Associate Professor on January 8, 1933 when vacancy in the post occurred, Respondent No. 3 Dr. R.P. Choudhary acquired the eligibility on February 5, 1983 and became eligible for promotion from that date against the second vacancy which also had occurred on January 8, 1983. Dr. Ramesh Chandra, the petitioner, who was appointed against poet created on March 10, 1983, is not entitled to retrospective appointment prior to April 27, 1983, when the notification regarding appointment was issued as prior to that date he was working as a Tutor in another Department, namely, Anatomy, and cannot, therefore, claim any teaching experience for the period from March 10, 1983 to April 26, 1983.
9. Dr. Narbadeshwar Prasad Sinha and respondent No. 3 have thus been granted promotion to the posts of Associate Professor in Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and Patna Medical College, Patna, with effect from January 8, 1983 and February 5, 1983, respectively. They have however been granted notional teaching experience of the post without additional monetary benefit for the period upto June 2, 1893, as they started performing the duties of the post from June 3, 1983. The petitioner has been held to have been appointed on April 27, 1983 but without any consequential monetary benefit or benefit of teaching experience for the period prior of June 3, 1983 when he started actually performing the duties of the post. The aforesaid promotions/appointment have been termed as ad hoc. Notification to the above effect as contained in Annexure 10 and 11 were accordingly issued on November 18, 1992, which are under challenge in this writ petition.
10. So far as that part of the decision/notifications which describe the promotion/appointment as ad hoc, is concerned there is no dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 that the same is contrary to the order of the Supreme Court. As noticed above, during the pendency of the S.L.P., the State Government by notification dated January 24, 1991 had made the ad hoc promotion/appointment of the parties regular and had also fixed inter se seniority. The Supreme Court noticed the above fact in its order dated September 27, 1991 and observed that "the dispute which requires determination relates to the seniority only." The matter was remitted to the High Court for determination of the said dispute alone. In that view of the matter, while considering the infer se claim of seniority in the light of the remand order.of this Court in CW.J.C No. 3596 of 1990 and the observation in C.W.J.C. No. 5969 of 1991 it was not open to the Government to go behind the above notification dated January 24, 1991 on its own and reopen the question regarding the nature of promotion/appointment of the parties. A part from the fact that such a decision is not warranted by the order of the Supreme Court, there can be no justification to convert a regular promotion/appointment into an ad hoc one.
11. The distinction between regular promotion/appointment and ad hoc promotion/appointment is. well known. Making regular promotion/appointment an ad hoc one is likely to cause prejudice to the person concerned and effect his rights. Nothing has been said by the State to suggest that the notification dated January 24, 1991 suffered from any illegality, irregularity or mistake. It is true that the judgment of this Court in E.W.J.C. No. 1815 of 1983 was set aside but that does not mean that the notification dated June 3, 1983 promoting/appointment the parties as Associate Professor will also consequently stand or cancelled, as opined by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary in the impugned decision. In my opinion, the order of the Supreme Court cannot be read as cancelling their promotion/appointment. All that the Supreme Court intended was that this Court should decide the dispute regarding seniority on a clean state without being influenced by the observations, findings etc. as contained in the judgment in C.W.J.C. 1815 of 1983. It should be kept in mind that the notification dated January 24, 1991 was already before the Supreme Court and it was on that basis that the 'only surviving' dispute was remitted back to this Court for determination. It is not dispute that the parties started functioning on the post and performed its duties from the date of their joining by virtue of the said notification. The ad hoc promotion/appointment having been made regular after following the prescribed procedures, a right must be deemed to have accrued to them to hold the post on substantive basis and the same cannot be taken away. That part of the decision giving "ad hoc" promotion/appointment to the parties is, therefore, clearly unsustainable.
12. In fairness to Mr. Banwari Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, it must be said that he did not go into the question of seniority. He emphasised that respondent No. 3 does not possess the necessary qualification for appointment as Associate Professor or Professor in Neuro Surgery. According to him, in terms of the Regulations framed by the Medical of India under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, degree of M.Ch. in Neuro Surgery is a must for appointment as Professor/Associate Professor and since respondent No. 3 does not possess the said qualification he cannot be said to be eligible for the same. (It is said that the petitioner is the only person qualified for such appointment). He conceded that in view of the orders of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4023 of 1991, it is not open to him to challenge the appointment to respondent No. 3 as Associate Professor. According to him, nevertheless, so far as the post of Professor is concerned, his eligibility should be examined despite the fact that qualifications for both the posts are the same. He placed heavy reliance on an unreported decision of the Supreme Court I in the case of Dr. Ganga Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar Civil Appeal Nos. 7721-22 of 1994 arising out of SLP No. 5231 of 1994) dated November 10, 1994. He also referred to Union of India v. Dr. S.B. Kohli and Dr. Arun Kumar Agranml v. State of Bihar ALR 1991 Supreme Court, 1514.
13. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, did address us on the question of seniority. He also challenged the appointment of the petitioner as Associate Professor. He submitted that in terms of the Bench decision of this Court, in the case of Dr. Hari Ram Singh v. State of Bihar CW.J.C. No. 3197 of 1978, disposed of on November 28, 1979 a Tutor has to be appointed from amongst the senior most Registrars in a particular or allied subject and similarly Lecturer or Professor should be appointed from amongst the seniormost Tutors and Lecturers respectively in the particular subject. Nobody is to be given a jumping promotion, for example, as Lecturer (now Associate Professor) without being the Tutor (Now Assistant Professor) and so on. It was pointed out that the petitioner was appointed Associate Professor directly without being Assistant Professor even for a day.
14. It is not possible to go behind the appointment of petitioner as Associate Professor either. As indicated above, respondent No. 3 had challenged the appointment of the petitioner both as Tutor in Anatomy with retrospective effect and as Associate Professor in Neuro Surgery, in C.W.J.C. 1815 of 1983. He, however, did not press the writ petition after remand from the Supreme Court. Besides, in view of the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4023 of 1991 the appointment of the petitioner Associate Professor like respondent No. 3 has to be upheld of a fait accompli. The absorption of the petitioner in the Bihar Health Service as Tutor with effect from May 29, 1971 and his appointment as Associate Professor in Neuro Surgery have become final. At least respondent No. 3 cannot challenge the same.
15. The trust of the argument of Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, however, was that in the case of Dr. Ganga Prasad Verma (supra) the Supreme Court did not consider the alternative qualification prescribed in the Regulations. According to him, respondent No. 3 is covered by the alternative qualification and his eligibility for appointment cannot be disputed. It was stated that application for review of the judgment in the case of Dr. Ganga Prasad Verma is pending in the Supreme Court and the judgment, therefore, cannot be said to be final. He placed strong reliance on Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao . He also referred to A.N. Shashtri v. State of Punjab , to buttress his plea that the qualification prescribed for appointment as Associate Professor and Professor being the same and there being no dispute about the validity of the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Associate Professor, he cannot be held to be unqualified for the post of Professor. He also tried to distinguish the case of Dr. Arun Kumar Agrawal (Supra).
16. At this stage the relevant clause of the Regulation of the Medical Council may be noticed. It is not in dispute that the Regulation approved by the Government of India vide letter dated June 5, 1971, called the 1971 Regulation, is the only Regulation on the subject having statutory force by reason of the said approval of the Central Government. Other Regulation are only recommendatory in nature. The relevant clause of the Regulation runs as follows:
Post Academic qualification Teaching/Research
Experience
(a) Professor/ M.Ch. in specialty concerned a) As Reader, Asstt. Prof.
Associate Profes after M.S./F.R.C.S. in respective subjects for 5
sor M.S./F.R.C.S. or an years in a medical college
equivalent qualification in after requisit Post graduat
Surgery with two years qualification.
special training in the
speciality concerned or
speciality Board (USA) in
the speciality concerned.
(b) Reader/Asst. -do- As Registrar or ah
Professor equivalent post for at least
3 year in respective
subjects in a teaching
institution.
17. Dr. Ganga Prasact Venna's (supra) was a case of promotion to the post of Associate Professor in Neuro Surgery, i.e. the same specifically involved in the present case. The case had gone to the Supreme Court from this Court. Tills Court had held, following Dr, Arun Kumar Agrawal's case, that if for appointment to the basic post of Assistant Professor the qualification of M.Ch. (Neuro Surgery) is essential, it is difficult to appreciate as to how for the higher post of Associate Professor, which is to filed by promotion from the said basic post, a person can be considered eligible even though he does not possess that qualification. In the Supreme Court it was urged on behalf of the appellant Dr. Ganga Prasad Verma that the qualification of M.Ch. is not a condition precedent for promotion to the post of Associate Professor and since the appellant had put in more than 15 years as Assistant Professor and also in the speciality concerned, he must be said to be fulfilling the alternative qualification, as held in Dr. R. Murli Babu Rao's case (supra). The Supreme Court rejected the submission in the following words:
We cannot read the Regulation in the manner suggested by the counsel. M.Ch. is a super speciality. The Associate Professor is to teach the students in that subject or guide the research students. So the regulation intended to prescribe M.S. is a must... Since the appellant did not have the qualification of M.Ch., though he had the experience, he is not entitled to be considered for promotion as Associate Professor.
The Court distinguished the case of Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao and, instead, followed Dr. Arun Kumar Agrawal (supra). In Dr. Arun Kumar Agrawal's case the Supreme Court had observed (at page 1518):
Thus for the post of Lecturer in Neuro; Surgery a degree of M.Ch. in Neuro Surgery is necessary. Admittedly the post of Assistant Professor in question before us is a teaching post in the subject of Neuro Surgery and it is beyond our comprehension as to how respondent No.5 who is only M.S. (General Surgery), can teach candidates for the degree of M.Ch. (Neuro Surgery), which is a much higher than M.S. and even a person having M.S. degree has to further pass M.Ch. Part II and Part III examinations before obtaining M.C. degree in Neuro Surgery.
18. In the case of Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao the question for consideration was whether in terms of Rule 5 read with the qualifications laid down in the Schedule (Annexure II) and Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical and Health Services Special Rules, 1982, framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the petitioners were eligible for appointment to the post of Professor in Cardiology in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Rule 4 of the said Rules laid down that a Deputy Civil Surgeon or an. Assistant Professor would be eligible for promotion as Professor after putting in total teaching experience of five years. 'Teaching experience' was defined under Rule 5 to mean teaching experience in the speciality concerned "after obtaining Post-Graduate qualification as specified in Annexure-II". The relevant entry of Annexure-II dealing with the Post of Professor in cardiology laid down that the candidate must possess one of the following Post-Graduate qualifications in the concerned speciality-(a) D.M. (Cardiology), (b) M.D./N.R.C.P. in Medicine with two years training in Cardiology. As per Rule 7, the work done by an Assistant Professor or Deputy Civil Surgeon in the concerned recognized unit and exclusively devoted to the speciality including the teaching experience during the specials training period in the speciality would count towards the training. The Government took into account the teaching experience acquired after the second post-graduate degree i.e. D.M. (Cardiology) and excluded the two petitioner on the ground that they did not possess the regulate teaching experience under Rule 5. The Supreme Court, in agreement with the Tribunal, held that the petitioners had been teaching the subject, Cardiology, for a number of years and thus had the requisite training and were, therefore, covered by the alternative qualification specified in Clause (b). It was observed, "We fail to appreciate the reason why the Associate Professor, Readers, Assistant Professor of Cardiology teaching the subject Cardiology in the Medical Colleges for years together should not be regarded as persons having special training in Cardiology within the meaning of Clause (b). This Court also made certain general observations that there are distinguished Assistant Professors/Readers/Associate Professors of Medicine in Medical Colleges in different States teaching Cardiology in the subject, who have gained sufficient expertise and knowledge in different branches of Cardiology and it would be rather unfortunate if such Assistant Professors/Readers/Associate Professors of Medicine were considered to be ineligible for appointment to the post of Professor of Cardiology merely because they are M.D./M.R.CP, in Medicine even though they may have the requisite teaching experience in many branches of Cardiology for the last 15 to 20 years in Medical Colleges. The Court suggested to the Medical Council of India, the Union Government and the State Government etc. to evolve a solution to preserve the right of such persons to be considered for promotion to the post of Professor of Cardiology.
19. Dr. R. Murali Rao's case is, thus, clearly, distinguishable. There the Court upheld the claim of eligibility of the petitioners because of the Rules as they had been teaching the subject for years together and this was construed as amounting to "special training" within the meaning of Clause (b) read with Rules 5 and 7. The position in the instant case is entirely different. In the State of Bihar no rule, unlike the State of Andhra Pradesh, has been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of otherwise. One has, therefore, to go by the qualification laid down in the 1971 Regulations. As would appear (See para 16 above) the qualification prescribed in the said Regulation is of two types-(i) Academic qualification, and (ii) Teaching/Research experience. While two years special training in the speciality concerned along with M.S./F.R.C.S. is treated as a part of academic qualification, as an alternative to M.Ch. after M.S./F.R.C.S., five years experience as Reader, Assistant Professor in the respective subject in a Medical College after the requisite Post-graduate qualification is deemed to be teaching/research experience, which is an independent qualification. In Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao's case teaching experience was understood in the same sense as "special training' because of the rules. So far as 1971 Regulation is concerned, the two cannot be read as having the same meaning. If teaching experience is understood in the same sense as amounting to training, they would not have been mentioned separately under two different columns-one laying down the academic qualification and the other laying down the experience qualification in the 1971 Regulation. Five years teaching experience in a medical college after Post-Graduation i.e. M.S./F.R.C.S. as stipulated in the 'Experience' columns would then, necessarily include two years special training mentioned in the "Academic qualification" column in all cases. All those possessing five years teaching experience after P.G. would then be deemed to be qualified. That cannot be said to be a correct interpretation. The correct interpretation in my view, would be that the person should possess both, the qualification of special training', if he claims to be covered by the alternative qualification, as well as the requisite teaching experience. The teaching experience, therefore, has to be given a different meaning. The judgment in Dr. R. Murali Babu's case is of no avail respondent No. 3.
20. The question is whether respondent No. 3 possesses the alternative qualification, that of M.S./F.R.C.S. in Surgery with two years special training in the speciality concerned. In the counter affidavit filed by him he has not stated facts on the fasts of which his claim regarding two years special training in the speciality could be considered. It appears from the chart filed during course be hearing, showing qualifications, that he is treating his three years tenure as Resident Surgical Officer (December 31, 1976 to December 30, 1979) as Special training. The post of Resident is, no doubt, a teaching post. But during the said period there was no department of Neuro Surgery in Patna Medical College which came into being for the first time in 1982. There is no evidence regarding nature of the work performed by him as a Resident in the General Surgery department during the said period. On the basis of such vague claim it is difficult to hold that the work that he performed during the said period of three years when he admittedly held a teaching post should be treated as 'special training'. As would appears from the qualification laid down in the Regulations, the person has to be M.Ch. after M.S./F.R.C.S. with two years special training in the speciality. Special training has thus been treated at par with M.Ch. M.Ch. is a much higher degree than M.S. Any qualification which is to be treated at par with M.Ch., which is a recognized qualification, cannot be said to be so, as amounting to special training unless it is duly recognized as equivalent to M.Ch. by the Medical Council. In the absence of any such material it is difficult to uphold the claim of respondent No. 3. In my opinion, the instant case is fully covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Dr. Arun Agrawal (supra) and Dr. Ganga Prasad Verma (supra).
21..In the above view of the matter, the question of seniority has little consequence and it is, therefore, not necessary to go into the same.
22. Before I conclude, in fairness to counsel for respondent No. 3, I would refer to the case of A.N. Shashtri (supra). That decision, as noticed above, was employed by the counsel in support of his plea that, in the absence of any challenge to the appointment of the said respondent to the post of Associate Professor, his appointment to the post of Professor cannot be questioned, qualifications for the two posts being the same. That case related to the appointment to the post of Director of Ayurved. The High Court found the appellant lacking in qualification as he had not studied in the regular course of the Ayurvedic system of medicines for live years. In as much as the qualification for the post of both the Deputy Director and the Director was the same, and the was no challenge to the appointment of the appellant to the post of Deputy. Director, the Apex Court did not agree with the conclusion of the High Court, In the instant case, it is true that the qualification for both Associate Professor and Professor are the same. It is also true that the appointment of respondent No. 3 on the post of Assistant Professor is not Under challenge. However, that is because of the intervening facts, particularly the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4023 of 1991. The appellant had questioned the correctness of the judgment of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. 1815 of 1993. During the pendency of the S.L.P. Both of them were appointed to the post of Associate Professor on substantive basis. The Supreme Court by implication, if not expressly, treated the appointment as final. The case was remanded to this Court for decision on the question of seniority alone, it is, therefore, not that kind of case where the appointment of a person on a particular post goes unchallenged as was the situation in. the cited case, That decision, therefore, is not applicable in the instant case.
23. To conclude, the impugned notifications dated November 18,1992, as contained in Annexure 10 and 11 appointing the petitioner and respondent No. 3 as Associate Professor, Neuro Surgery, on ad hoc are not in accordance with law. They shall be treated as having been substantively appointed/promoted on the post. The notification shall stand modified to that extant. The notification appointing respondent No. 3 as Professor, Neuro Surgery, vide Annexure-11, also cannot the said to" be accordance with law. That part of Annexure-11 is quashed. The respondent-State is directed to consider the matter of promotion to tine post of Professor, Neuro Surgery, in accordance with law, afresh.
24. In the result, the writ application is allowed. I would make no order as to costs.
S.J. Mukhopadhya, j.
I agree.