Appointing More Experienced Faculty in Administrative Post not Stigmatic to ex-faculty: HC to Anesthetist
Ahmedabad: Dismissing the plea by an ex-HOD of the Anesthesia Department of an Ahmedabad-based medical college, Gujarat High Court recently made it clear that handing over an administrative post to a more experienced candidate cannot be claimed to be "stigmatic" for the former position holder.
Such observations came from the Gujarat High Court bench comprising of Justice Biren Vaishnav, while it was considered the plea by a doctor who had been removed from the post of HOD after a complaint had been lodged against him before the Gender Harassment Committee.
However, the bench opined that the doctor had been removed from the post for administrative reasons and the doctor who replaced him was far more experienced and senior faculty.
The case concerned the petitioner doctor who holds an M.D degree in Anesthesia from AIIMS, New Delhi. He was appointed as the Head of the Department of Anesthesia in a medical college on 17.03.2017.
After joining the post, the doctor in 2021 wrote to the Medical Superintendent of the medical college and complaint about one Anesthesia Assistant for being irregular and absent. She was orally warned in the presence of other co-workers.
However, a few days later, the doctor received a call for interrogation in the Gender Harassment Committee because of the complaint filed by the Anesthesia Assistant.
Consequently, as a result of the committee's report, the charge of the HOD of the Anesthesia Department had been taken over from the doctor by an order dated 14.07.2021.
The doctor challenging the order and submitted that the order dated 14.07.2021 amounted to reduction in rank without any reasons and amounted to violation of the Rules framed under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
He submitted that the order was without any legal sanctity and it was the outcome of the interrogation of Gender Harassment Committee. Arguing that no charge sheet or any opportunity of hearing was given to him, the doctor claimed the order to be bad. He further contended that the reduction in rank was in violation of Section 51(A) of the Gujarat University Act.
It was further submitted by the doctor that because of the order, the future employment opportunities of the doctor would also get affected and the order of reduction is a punishment order without any charge-sheet and it attracted stigma.
On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the medical college submitted that the petitioner was engaged after his retirement from service. He was given the charge as HOD, but his appointment was only to the post of Professor. So, only a charge that was given to the doctor had been withdrawn.
The counsel for the college further argued that the dispute between an employee like the doctor and the college can be adjudicated before the Gujarat Education Institutional Services Tribunal. Therefore, the doctor has an alternative remedy either before the Tribunal or by filing a civil suit.
After considering the submissions made by both the parties, the court referred to the order of appointment dated 17.03.2017 where the petitioner doctor had only been appointed as Professor in Anesthesiology on a consolidated salary.
The court further noted that the appointment was purely temporary and for administrative convenience, the charge of HOD was handed over to the petitioner doctor. In the impugned order dated 14.07.2021, the charge was taken over from the petitioner doctor for administrative reasons, noted the court, and it was handed over to another doctor.
Taking note of the fact that the petitioner doctor in his petition had tried to make out a case of stigma a result of the charge being taken back, the Court noted, "If for administrative reason, it is so done, even on the basis of the Gender Harassment Committee's findings, it cannot be faulted on the ground being stigmatic."
Further, the bench also perused the seniority list of the Gujarat University and observed that the doctor who had been given the charge taking it from the petitioner, had a total teaching experience of 39 years and 11 months and a professor of 20 years and 3 months. On the other hand, the petitioner doctor had a total teaching experience of 17 years and 3 months and as a professor of 4 years and 3 months.
"Evidently, therefore, Dr. *** has far more experience and senior to the petitioner and handing over the charge to Dr. *** cannot be said to be an act of stigma and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be in any manner whatsoever considered to be stigmatic and cannot even be said to be reduction in rank," noted the court as it dismissed the plea.
To read the court order, click on the link below.
