Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Dr S K Jawahar vs Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute For ... on 2 November, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00108/2015
Original Application No. 180/00109/2015
Thursday, this the 2nd day of November, 2017
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr.U.Sarathchandran, Judicial Member
Hone ble Mr.E.K.Bharat Bhushan, Administrative Member
OA No. 108/2015
Dr. S.K. Jawahar,
Deputy Medical Superintendent,
Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences & Technology,
Medical College P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram --695 011. Applicant
(By applicant in person)
Ye r s U 5
i. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences & Technology,
Represented by its Director,
Medical College P.O., Thiruvananthapuram -- 695 011.
2. The Governing Body of Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical
Sciences & Technology,
Represented by its Director,
Medical College P.O., Thiruvananthapuram -- 695 011.
3. Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Science & Technology,
New Mehrauli Road, Technology Bhavan,
New Delhi-- 110 016. Respondents
(By Advocate -- Mr. T.R. Ravi [Ri & R2])
(By Advocate -- Mr. N. Anilkumar Sr. PCGC[R3J)
2
OA No. 109/2015
Dr. S.K. Jawahar,
Deputy Medical Superintendent,
Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences & Technology,
Medical College P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram -- 695 011. Applicant
(By applicant in person)
Versus
1. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences & Technology,
Represented by its Director,
Medical College P.O., Thiruvananthapuram -- 695 011,
2. Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Science & Technology,
New Mehrauli Road, Technology Bhavan,
New Delhi-- 110 016. Respondents
(By Advocate -- Mr. T.R. Ravi [Ri])
(By Advocate -- Mr. S. Ramesh, ACGSC [R21)
Both the above applications having been heard together on 24.10.20 17, the Tribunal
passed the folllowing order on 02.11.2017.
ORDER
Per: E.K. Bharat Bhushan, Administrative Member O.A. No. 108/2015 has been filed by Dr.S.K.Jawahar working as Deputy Medical Superintendent under the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences & Technology (SCTIMST for short) challenging Annexure A6 and Annexure A7 viz., Governing Body's decisions dated 30.6.2012 and 13.3 .2013. 2 He has also filed another OA No. 109/2015 challenging the denial of appropriate placement in the Pay scale, Grade Pay and Pay Band consequent upon pay revision effected in SCTIMST based on the recommendation of the 6" Pay Commission. 3
3. As the applicant in both O.As is one and the same, these two Original Applications are disposed of through a common order.
4. The reliefs sought in OANo. 108/2015 are as under:
(1)Declare that applicant is entitled to be appointed to the post of Associate Professor; Hospital Administration in Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Sciences & Technology, not jfied in Annexure A3. (2) Direct the respondents to consider appointing the applicant as Associate Professor; Hospital Administration in Sree Chtira Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences & Technology (3) Call for the records leading to the issue ofAnnexure A 6 and A 7 and set aside Annexure A6 andA 7.
(4) Declare that the Governing Body is not competent to deny appointment on frivolous grounds after selection by SSSC which is also a statutory body under SCTIMSTAct.
(5) Any other further relief or order as this Hon'bvle Tribunal may deem fit and proper to meet the ends ofjustice.
(6) Award the cost of these proceedings.
5. Brief facts in OA 108/2 015 are as under:
Applicant is presently working as Deputy Medical Superintendent under the respondents. He has completed 12 years of service after Post Graduation in Hospital Administration. In addition to other qualifications, he has passed LLB from the University of Kerala in 2005. The Governing Body of the SCTIMST decided to create a post of Associate Professor, Hospital Administration at their meeting on 17.9.2011.
The qualifications prescribed for this post were at par with the equivalent post at AIIMS, New DelhL The Institute notified the vacancy of Associate Professor, Hospital Administration (Annexure A3). Applicant ap1ied for the post as he satisfied all conditions stipulated in the notification' (Annexire A4, H ws called for an inter'iew and attended the same. Selections to other posts were also conducted alongside. The Selection Committee proceedings (Annexure AS) were placed for approval of the Governing Body of the Institute. However, the Governing Body approved all the recommendations of the Selection Committee except that of Associate Professor, on the ground that there was only one candidate (applicant herein). It directed that the post may be reasdvertised for wider publicity (Annexure A6). An Appeal was submitted by the applicant before the Governing Body but the same was rejected adhering to their earlier decision. (Annexure A7).
6. Applicant stales that the decision of the Governing Body is illegal as it is a deliberate attempt to deny appointment to him. In a similar situation with respect to the post of Professor of Neurosurgery. only one internal candidate had applied and the committee found him suitable for the post and recommended his appointment. From this instance it is clear that even when there is only one candidate selection can be granted to him/her. The decision taken tc readvertise is biased, arbitrary and violation of the principles of natural justice and equity.
7. Applicant submits that he is the only qualified and experienced Hospital Administrator working in Government Sector in Kerala. He has alleged personal vindictiveness arid malafide intention behind the decision. In 3imilar situations at AJIMS, New Delhi, Delhi High Court had ordered that Governing Body cannot deny approval over the recommendations of the SSSC in the case of one Mr. S.M. Boss. Further when the applicant was selected to the post of Medical Superintendent at AIIMS, Bhopal, the applicant was denied permission, which is a clear proof of victimisation. This resulted in his filing W.P(C) No.29663 of 2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. Applicant has also filed representation dated 22.5.20 14 (Annexure A8) but has not been favoured with a reply.
8. As grounds the applicant states that the denial of appointment to the post of 5 Associate Professor, Hospital Administration is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. When an expert body found the applicant suitable, the decision of Governing Body in not approving the recommendation is illegal and arbitrary. When the recommendation of the SSSC for appointment of another person who was the only candidate for the post of Professor of Neurosurgery had been approved by the Governing Body, they cannot take a different stand in the case of the applicant. The post of Associate Professor, Hospital Administration was notified with the approval of the Governing Body and the Selection Committee, after due process, recommended appointment of the applicant. In such circumstances denying appointment to the applicant on the ground that he was the sole candidate and deciding to readvertise the post is unfair and arbitrary. Also the applicant had been deprived of his rightfiul career advancement by not relieving him to join as Superintendent AIIMS, Bhopal despite being selected in n All India selection process and then not approving his name as recommended by the Selection Committee as Associate Professors are clear evidence that he is being targetted due to extraneous reasons.
9. Applicant has filed MA No.159 of 2015 for condoning the delay of 327 days in filing the Original Application. Applicant filed a representation on 22.5.2014 and was waiting for a reply to the same. He had been hping that the repeated denial of entitled benefits on rñultiple fronts would cease. He had been raIsing the above issues before the competent authority at every possible opportunity and was hopeful that there would be some positive outcome. The delay was not willful and there is no laches on the part of the applicant and it was due to factors beyond his control. The nature of duties of oplicant as Deputy Medical Superintendent with substantial number of patients to deal with every day also contributed to the delay in meeting his counsel in tii- e. Respondents had filed a reply to the MA stating that the decision in Annexure A6 was taken on 30.6.2012 and the challenge in this OA is highly belated. There is no satisfactory explanation of the applicant to condone the delay, according to the respondents. In view of the circumstances explained by the applicant, the MA No.159/2015 is allowed and the delay is condoned.
10. Per contra, respondents 1 &2 in their reply statement dispute the averments in the OA. The Governing Body had created a post of Associate Professor (Hospital Administration) and the post had been notified for recruitment in March 2012. On his application, the Senior Staff Selection Committee (SSSC) considered his candidature on 11.5.20 12 and recommended him for appointment. The role of the SSSC is only recommendatory and it is not obligatory that the Governing Body should act according to the recommendation. The Governing Body at its meeting on 30.6.2012 considered the recommendation of the SSSC and taking stock of the fact that the applicant was the sole applicant decided to readvertise the post with wider publicity in order to attract more candidates with suitable experience. It is unquestionable that the right to fill up a post or not, lies with the Governing Body.
11. While considering the appeal of the applicant, the Governing Body had instructed that the Institute must review the feasibility of conducting the Master of Hospital Administration programme, on the basis of a detailed consideration of the limited medical specialties available at the Institute, the future availability of qualified faculty to run the programme, the employment opportunity of the MHA graduates coming out of such a set up and the mandate of the Institute within the Department of Science and Technology. Filling up of the post of Associate Professor and other 7 academic positions in the proposed Department of Hospital Administration is dependent on an objective analysis of these factors. Thus the action of the Governing Body cannot be termed arbitrary or illegal. The respondents have not made any deliberate attempt to deny appointment to applicant. The respondents cannot be complled to appoint personnel in a department which is not functional and thus incur unjustified expenditure of public money. The filling up of the post of Professor, Neurosurgery cannot be compared to this case as a clear vacancy existed there.
12. As per OM No. 7(2)/E.CoordI2013 dated 18.9.2013 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, New Delhi there is a total ban on creation of Plan and Non-Plan posts, Since the Institute does not have the practice of sending non- academic/administrative officials on deputation basis, Governing Body did not consider the applicant's request for sending him on deputation to AJIMS, Bhopal. There is no absolute right vested in any employee to demand to be sent on deputation. Respondents I &2 prayed for dismissal of the OA.
1 3. Applicant filed rejoinder reiterating his contentions in the OA annexing Annexure A9 which is true copy of the relevant portion of the Pay Structure Review Committee which revised the qualification of the post of Medical Superintendent, Armexure A1O which is clarification issued to the Director, SCTIMST by the Medical Superintendent of AJIMS, Annexure Al 1 Government of India Order No.V. 11025/6/94- ME( UG) dated 3.10.1994 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Annexure Al2 which is a communication No.AIIMS/Bhopal/Faculty Rectt/2016/03/2634 dated 25.7.2017 of the AIIMS Bhopal. He has stated that the Governing Body has always approved all recommendations of Senior Staff Selection Committee (SSSC) in the past as both Governing Body and SSSC are statutory bodies as U 8 per the SCTIMST Act, 1980. The decision to deny the appointment to the post of Associate Professor, Hospital Administration is purposely done to harm the career progression of the applicant.
14. We have heard Dr. S.K. Jawahar, who is the applicant in both cases, appearing in person, Shri T.R.Ravi, learned counsel for the respondents 1&2 in OA 108/2015 and Respondent No.1 in OA. 109/20 15, Mrs. Tanuja representing Shri N.Anil Kumar, Senior Panel Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 in OA 105/2015 and Shri S.Ramesh, ACGSC appearing for Respondent No.2 in OA 109/2015 and all documents/pleadings have been perused.
15. The applicant is a qualified medical doctor who has also got appropriate qualifications in Hospital Administration. He has been working as the Deputy Medical Superintendent which is a post in the administrative set up of the respondent institution. With his career goals in mind, he had wanted to shift to the teaching line and coming across a notification calling for applications to be considered for the ost of Associate Professor in Hospital Administration, he had duly submitted his application. The respondents had notified the post as they planned to start courses in Hospital Administration at the Institute. The selection was confined to just one individual who was the applicant himself as he was the sole applicant for the post. This factor as well as the fact that there was requirement for further examination of the proposal to start the Hospital Administration course prevailed upon the Governing Body of the Institute, which is duly empowered to take the decision in this regard, not tO proceed with the appointment and instead, to readvertise the post. Apparently, the decisionto readvertise the post was due to the reason that there was only one applicant as well as due to the fact that a more detailed analysis was required to ensure that the proposed course would be 9 financially feasible..
16. The applicant had apparently felt confident that he would be selected for the post. But to his great surprise, the Governing Body declined to do so. This is the substance of his claim that he had pursued through the OA. Now, in any organization it is the duly constituted authority mandated with taking decisions on such matters which will decide whether to start a particular activity and whether to appoint personnel to manage that activity. From this perspective, we do not see anything arbitrary or illegal in the Governing Body deciding to soft-peddle the appointment to start the course as well as to appoint the applicant as Associate Professor. The applicant has also cited the instance of a Professor of Neurosurgery having been appointed despite being the sole applicant. We do not think there is any similarity between the two cases as it is undenied that there was a clear vacancy of Neurosurgery Associate Professor, whereas in this case there was no such post as advertised in existence. The claim that the applicant is being denied an opportunity to go on deputation as a part of vindictive action on the part of the respondents is also difficult to comprehend as the decision to send someone working in one organization on deputation to another organization iS one which is vested solely in the competent authority. The administrative structure of the Institute clearly reveals that Governing Body is the supreme authority vested with these powers. On examining all these factors we do not see any substance in the claim of the applicant. The OA is liable to be rejected.
1 7. The reliefs sought in OA No. 109/2015 are as under:
(1) Direct the respondents to consider placing the applicant in the scale of Rs.
15600-39100 with GP of Rs. 8000/- w.e.f 1.1.2006 ie., the date of effect of revision of pay in the institute based upon 6" Pay Commission with all consequential benefits;
w 10 or in the alternative Direct the respondents to implement the recommendation of the Anomaly Committee for placement of the applicant in Rs. 15600-39100 with GP of Rs. 7600/- w. e.f 1.1.2006 and to regulate further placement in FCP/LP accordingly with all consequential benefits (2) Direct the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for parity with academic staff in respect of the post of Administrative Medical Officer/Deputy Medical Superintendent.
(3) Any other further relief or order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fIt and proper to meet the ends ofjustice.
(4) Award the cost of these proceedings.
18. The brief facts in OA 109/2015 are as under:
In this case the applicant's grievances are on account of denial of appropriate placement in the pay scale, grade pay and pay band consequent upon pay revision in SCTIMST on the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission. The applicant was appointed as Trainee Administrative Medical Officer and worked therein from December 1996 to December 1997 and later was appointed as Assistant Administrative Medical Officer where he continued from 23.12.1997 to 14.8.1998. The appointment was made permanent and he continued as such till 4.4.2004 in the pay scale of Rs. 7000-275-13500. Applicant was sent for MHA programme on deputation to AIIMS, New Delhi and underwent the programme from July 2000 to June 2002,. Thereafter he was promoted and redesignated as Administrative Medical Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 11625-325-15200 from 5.4.2004 in which post he continued till 3 1.6.2012. The post of Administrative Medical Officer was further, redesignated as Deputy Medical Superintendent w.e.f. 1.7.2012 as per order dated 4.7.2014 (Annexure Al).
19. The scale of Rs. 11625-325-15200 (pre-revised) was a scale equivalent to the post of Assistant Professor at the Institute then. As per the 6th Pay Commission 11 recommendations, it was ordered to provisionally fit the pay scale of Rs. 11625-325- 15200 into pay band Rs. 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- (Annexure A6). However, in January 2010 the Government of India upgraded the scale of Assistant Professor to the Grade Pay of Rs. 8000/-. But this revision was not made applicable to the post of Administrative 1\4edica1 Officer at the Institute despite the qualification, experience and scale of pay offered being the same as that of the post of Assistant Professor. Further at the Institute, all posts, except that of Administrative Medical Officer, who were initially in the scale of Rs. 11625-325-15200 were placed in pay band Rs. 15600-39 100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 8000/-. Applicant filed a representation dated 9.9.2010 (Annexure A9) before the authorities. However, the Institute took the stand that the post of Administrative Medical Officer is under Administrative category and unless the post of Administrative Medical Officer is categorized as academic, the benefits as applicable to the post of academic staff cannot be extended to him and that the applicant would be only eligible for ladder promotion o the Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- from April, 2012.
20. App1icart sibmits that his post being hot considered an academic post, is unfair. The post has academic and research components in addition to admfnistratjve duties. The Pay Structure Review Committee report dated 11.5.2011 (AniexureA1O) had stated that the Governing Body has to consider the issue of Administrative Medical Officer parity with academic staff. Anomaly Committee appointed has also recommended the Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- for Administrative Medical Officer w.e.f. 1.1.2006 (Annexure A 12). This was also not implemented. Hence the äpp1icnt submitted Annexure A13 representation dated 20.10.2014. The scale of pay of Rs. 15600-39 100 with Grade pay of Rs. 7600/- offered o the Deputy Medical Superintendent is below the scale of 12 Assistant Professor of the Institute. Earlier Administrate Medical Officer was posted as Deputy Medical Superintendent in the scale of Additional Professor. He has narrated some of the facts mentioned in OA 108/20 15 regarding his being not sent on deputation, non-acceptance by Governing Body of recommendation of SSSC for the post of Associate Professor, Hospital Administration etc., in this case also. He has been repeatedly representing to the Institute, but in vain.
21. As grounds applicant states that earlier while implementing the pay revision consequent to 6th Pay Commission Report, both the post of Administrative Medial Officer and Assistant Professor were placed in the same scale Rs. 15600-39 100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- The pay scale of Assistant Professor was later upgraded to the Grade Pay of Rs. 8000/-. The non-consideration of his request to consider t1i"
post of Administrative Medical Officer as an academic post for parity with academic staff is unjust and unfair. The non-acceptance of the report of the Anomaly Committee in Annexure Al2 to grant the Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006 is unjust, unfair, arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The qualification prescribed for the post of Administrative Medical Officer is same as that of the qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor. Hence the revision of pay effected for the Assistant Professors category ought to have been granted to the scale granted to the post of Administrative Medical Officer as we1. Refusal to do so is highly unjust, illegal and arbitrary.
22. Per contra the first respondent filed a reply statement refuting the averments in the OA. While accepting the details of the positions held by the applicant and his pay etc. the respondents state that there should not be any cross comparison with the norms as applicable for recruitment of academic staff As per the service Rules of the 13 Institute, Administrative Medial Officer is a non-academic post and the pay of Administrative Medical Officer is placed under administrative category. The pay fixation made on the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission was audited by internal audit and Comptroller and Auditor General of India. He was promoted under FCP Scheme and granted the Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-. The pay of Assistant Professor in the pre-revised scale Rs. 11625-325-15200 was revised to the pay band of Rs. 15600- 39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 8000/- considering the qualification for the post and experience.
23. The qualification for Assistant Professor and Administrative Medical Officer are not the same and the nature of duty is also different. The applicant's claim for pay fixation and appointing him as Associate Professor were placed before the Governing Body thiough Finance Committee. but the Govei'ning Body did not consider his case thvourahly finding that the fixation done was is er rules. Applicants appointment itself vas in the Adrnihistrativ Cadre and nO comparisOn can he made between acadeiThtaii and administrative staff The institute never denIed ãy benefit to the applicant. The applicant was aware of the difference between the two categories. The Pay Structure Review Committee did not address the request of the applicant for parity with academic staff
24. Applicant is not a teaching faculty of the Institute. The applicant's pay was fixedin the pay band of Rs. 15600-39100 with GP ofR. 6600/-, which is corresponding the pre-revisdd scale of Rs. 10000-15260. They have reiterated their contentions nade in OA 10812015 regarding sendhg of app1icnt on deiitatio and of the I1egCd denial of oportuity for career advancehienL The espOndents pray for dismisal of this OA.
14
25. Applicant has filed a rejoinder annexing Annexures A15 to A21 communications and reiterated most of his contentions in the original application. Both learned counsel were heard and all pleadings and documents examined.
26. The crux of the grievance of the applicant in OA 109/20 15 is that being put in the non-academic administrative branch, he is being denied pay aud allowances on par with his compatriots on tile academic side. He points out that when he was posted as Administrative Medical Officer, he was granted scale of pay of Rs. 11 625-325-15200 which was on par with t'ne .pay scale of the Assistant Professor then. On effecting revision consequent on 6th CPC, both the post of Administrative Medical Officer and Assistant Professor were placed on Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- as provisional fitment. However, while orders were passed for upgrading the scale of Assistant Professors to Rs. 15600-39 100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 8000/- the same wa denied to the Administrative Medical Officer who continued in th lower Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/-. The applicant who is the sole representative of office category has been taking up this issue time and again pointing out the disparity between the academic staff and the administrative officials but has r10t been favoured by the Governing Body so far. He has cited the Pay Structure Review Committee and Anomaly Committee in his defense. Eventhough, the Anomaly Committee recommended a Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- w.efol.01.2006 this is yet to be given effect to.
27. On behalf of the respondents it is firmly stated that although initially the Assistant Professor and the Administrative Medical Officer were on the same level in terms of pay and allowances, this had changed with the acceptance of 6th CPC. In any case, the qualifications required for the post of the Administrative Medical Officer and the Assistant Professor are different and no parity can be claimed on that count. The 15 contention of the applicant that his profile and pay have been gradually declining with acceptance of each Pay Commission is found to be true in the sense that his parity which was in existence as compared to the post of Assistant Professor/Associate Professor has come down subsequently. He is also put at a further disadvantage because the Recruitment Rules citing the qualifications required for his superior post of Medical Superintendent have since been amended excluding the qualifications which he possesses. So, he cannot expect any kind of career advancement by way of promotion. He claims and it is iot denied that he is the only qualified medical doctor who is also qualified in Hospital Management. Under the circumstances, we feel that his case requires close analysis at the level of the competent authority in the respondent organization. His representations according to the applicant have not been considered favourably so far and he has not been favoured with any reply. This is not a desirable situation. We direct the applicant to submit a comprehensive representation citing all the arguments in his favour including the equation beteen the acadenic and administrative staff in other similar organizations. This representatioi ohce fik.d should be considered by the respondent No. 1 as expeditiously as possible on merits and in. any case within three months of submission. A duly considered decision in the form of a speaking order considering all aspects of the case should be issued once the coiisideration is completed.
28. Thus on examining the case, O.A.No. lOS/2015stands rejected as explained in para 16. O.A No.109/2015 is disposedof with a direction as conained in para 27. No order as to costs.
(E.K. Binit Bk us/ian).
Administrative Member (U.Sarat/w/iandran)
J!idiCjal Member
Aspp.s
16
App1icnt'sAnrexrcs i; OA 108/2015
AnnexureA-1 True copy of the Certificate issued byAlIMS,
New Delhi.
Annexure A-i (a) - True copy of the certificate (DipNB) issued to the
applicant by the National Board of Examinations.
Annexure A-i (b) - True copy of the experience certificate issued by the
Director SCTIMST dated 16.3.2012.
Annexure A-2 - True copy of the relevant portion of Minutes of
Governing Body meeting held on 17.09.2011.
Annexure A-2(a) - True copy of the relevant portion of Minutes of
Governing Body held on 20:12.2011.
Annexure A-3 - True copy of the notificetion inviting application to
vanioLs pests in SCTMST:
Annexure A-4 - True copy of the application submitted by the applicant.
Annexure A-5 - True copy of the proceedings of Senior Staff Selection
Committee held on 11.5.2012.
Annexure A-6 True copy of the extract of the Governing Bodys
decision in its meeting held on 30.6.20 12 (relevant
portion).
Annexure A-7 True copy of the extract of the Governing Bodys
decision in its meeting held on 13.3.2013 (relevant
portion).
Annexure A-8 True copy of the representation dated 22.5.2014 to the
1st respondent.
Annexure A-9 - True copy of the relevant portion of the Pay Structure
Review Committee which revise the qualifiGation of the post of Medical Superintendent Annexure A-lU True copy of the clarification issued to the Director, SCTIMST by the Medical Superintendent of AliMS.
Annexure A-li - True copy of the order of Government of India vid No. V.11025/6/94-ME(UG) dated 3.10.1994 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
Annexure A-12 True copy of the communication No. F.No. AlIMS! Bhopal/Faculty RecttI20l 6/03/2634 dated 25.7.2017 issued by the AIIMS Bhopat.
Respondents Annexure in OA 10812015 NIL 17 Applicant's annexures in OA 109/2015 Annexure A-i True copy of the order No. P&A.11l/PF-1616/ SCTIMST/2014 dated 4.8.2014 issued by the 1St respondent.
AnnexureA-2 - True copy of the certificate issued byAJIMS, New Delhi.
Annexure A-2(a) - True copy of the certificate (DipNB) issued to the applicant by the National Board of Examination.
Annexure A-2(b) - True copy of the experience certificate issued by the Director SCTIMST dated 16.3.2012.
Annexure A-3 True copy of the order No. P&A.Il/ 185/AAMO/ SCTIMST/98 dated 12.8.1998 issued by the 1st respondent.
Annexure A-4 True copy of the order No. Per&Admn.1/ XI 15/ SCTIMST/2004 dated 26.5.2004 issued by the 1st respondent.
Annexure A-5 True copy of the order No. Per&Admn. X (24) SCTIMST/89 dated 13.4.1989 issued by the 1st respondent.
Annexure A-6 True copy of the pay revision order effected in SCTIMST (relevant portion).
Annexure A-7 True copy of the order No. P&A. I! X/ 15/
SCTIMST/2010 dated 27.2.2010 issued by the
1st respondent.
Annexure A-8 True copy of the order No. P&A. I! XI 37/
SCTIMST/2010 dated 22.7.2010 issued by the
1st respondent.
Annexure A-9 True copy of representation dated 9.9.2010 to the
Cadre Review Committee, SCTIMST.
Annexure A-lU True copy of relevant porton of the:report of Pay
Structure Review Committee dated, Ii .5;2011.
nnexure A-li True copy of the order No. P&A. Ill 393/ FCP (SSSC)I
SCTIMST/2013 dated 30.6.2014 issued by the
1st respondent.
Annexure A-i 2 True copy of the recommendation by the PSRC and
Anomaly Committee in the case of the applicant.
AnnexureA-13 - True copy of representation dated 20.10.2014 to the
1st respondent.
18
Annexure A-14 - True copy of representation dated 22.5.2014 to the
i respondent.
Annexure A-15 - True copy of communication No. P&A.1/ 66/
SCTMST/2015dated 20.5.2015 issued by the
SCTIMST.
AnnexureA-16 - True copy of the relevant portion of the notification
issued by the SCTIMST.
AnnexureA-17 - True copy of the experience certificate issued to the
applicant by the Institute on 6.4.2017.
Annexure A-18 - True copy of the notification No. P&A.II/ 7/ SSSC/
SCTIMST/2010 dated 30.3.2010 issued by the
SCTIMST.
AnnexureA-18(a) True copy of notification No. P&A.11/ 14/SSSC/
SOT IMST/2012 dated 1.3.2012 issued by the
SCTIMST.
AnnexureA-18(b) - True copy of notification No. P&A.11/40/SSSC/
SCTIMST/95 dated 22.12.1995 issued by the
SCTI MST
Annexure A-19 True copy of communication No. V.11025/6/94-ME
(UG) dated 3.10.1994 issued by the Government of
India.
Aririexure A-20 - True copy of relevant portion of the order prescribing
the qualification and experience for the post of
Associate Professor of Hospital Administration at
AIIMS New Delhi.
Annexure A-21 - True copy of notification byAlIMS New Delhi for the
post of Medical Superintendent.
Respondents Annexures in OA 109/2015
NIL
PPS to Member