Allahabad High Court
Dr. Gangaram vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 January, 2011
Bench: Sunil Ambwani, Yogesh Chandra Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 72397 of 2010 Petitioner :- Dr. Gangaram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Uma Nath Pandey,Ashok Khare Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C. Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon'ble Yogesh Chandra Gupta,J.
We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Uma Nath Pandey, Advocate, and learned standing counsel appearing for the State. Let counter affidavit be filed in four weeks.
The petitioner is aggrieved with his supercession by respondent no.6,in appointment to the post of Chief Medical Officer, Family Welfare and consequential discrimination, with a person junior to him in service.
Learned standing counsel had earlier informed the Court that the additional charge of District Immunization Officer, was taken away from the petitioner posted as Deputy Chief Medical Officer, and thus he will not be reporting to respondent no.6, Dr. Kanhaiya Lal, Chief Medical Officer, Family Welfare, District Kushinagar.
Learned standing counsel now confirms and states that though as a Level-4 Medical Officer with seniority position at serial no.7430, the petitioner is senior to Dr. Kanhaiya Lal in the same level, at serial no. 7474, it is not obligatory for the State Government to post, the senior most Level-4 Officer as Joint Director, Chief Medical Officer or Chief Medical Officer, Family Welfare (earlier designated as District Project Officer).
A number of writ petitions are being filed in the Court, challenging the arbitrary action of the State Government to pick and choose Level-4 Medical Officers to man to post of Chief Medical Officers. Though the State Government may give the important posts in the Medical and Health Department, to Level-4 Medical Officers, the issue of discrimination becomes apparent when the junior officers are appointed on these posts. It is not the question of reporting to a junior officer but also an opportunity to serve on important posts on the basis of seniority.
The amendment by the Government order dated 10th February, 2007 in the Government Order dated 20th June, 2005, to the effect of deleting the words that under Clause 2, only senior most officers of the 1st class will be appointed as Chief Medical Officer, does not make any difference to the claim of the senior officers to man important posts. No reason has been given in the Government Order dated 20th June, 2005 to revise the policy. The word 'asangat' (irrelevant) is not a reason sufficient enough to change a decision taken to treat seniority as a guiding factor for appointments on these posts.
The Government may deny opportunity to the senior most officers in the district, on any ground such as pendency of disciplinary enquiry or any other pressing administrative ground. In ordinary course however the seniority must be adhered to in appointments on such posts.
We find that a Division Bench sitting at Lucknow in writ petition No.1762 of 2010 (SB) (Dr. Kripa Ram Verma Vs. State of U.P.) has also passed an order on the same lines.
An interim mandamus is issued directing the respondents, to post only senior most Medical Officers in the District in Level-4, on the post of Chief Medical Officer and Chief Medical Officer, Family Welfare. The rule of seniority will be strictly adhered to in making such appointments. Until further orders, the petitioner will be appointed and allowed to discharge duties as Chief Medical Officer, Family Welfare, Kushinagar.
List on 22.2.2011.
Order Date :- 12.1.2011 NS