Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 14: Division Bench of State High Court comprising Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Tashi Rabstan today dismissed the LPA filed by Dr Shahsi Gupta against the judgment of Writ Court whereby Commissioner Secretary Health and Medical Education Department was directed to treat promotion of Dr Shashi Gupta on the post of Assistant Professor with effect from 23.04.1995, the date recommended by Public Service Commission and not to confer any benefit of seniority or experience for the period of dies non.
After hearing Advocate Abhinav Sharma for the appellant whereas Senior Advocate UK Jalali for Dr. Indu Kaul and Deputy AG Sanjeev Padha for the State, DB observed, “the appellant firmly believes that even if the period of ‘dies non’ was to be excluded, she would still figure senior to the private respondent. If that is so, even if the inter se seniority is re-determined between the appellant and the private respondent the same would not, in the ordinary course, be a direction, which would affect the interest of the appellant and, therefore, even if such a direction is passed, the appellant should have no grievance”.
“In any case, it would be appropriate that the official respondents do the requisite exercise, which becomes necessary especially in view of the directions to the respondents to determine as to whether the promotion to the post of Professor granted in favour of the appellant was in contravention of the recommendations of Public Service Commission”, the DB said, adding “any finding in the affirmative would also bring the appellant lower in seniority although she claims that she would still figure senior to the private respondent”.
“In any case, the direction to re-determine the seniority inter se between the appellant and the private respondent suffers from no illegality and cannot be interfered with”, the DB said, adding “an apprehension was expressed by the appellant that in the garb of re-determining the seniority, inter se, between the appellant and the private respondent, the Govt. was likely to promote the private respondent from dates earlier in point of time from which she stood promoted. This, according to the counsel for the appellant, would cause prejudice to her interest”.
“However, the apprehension expressed is totally pre- mature. For all, we know the Govt. may not do any such thing and if at all, any such orders are passed, it would be open to the appellant to avail her remedies in law”, the DB said while dismissing the LPA.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel