MP DME told to pay Rs 25,000 fine for promoting Junior Doctor as Professor before Senior
Indore: The Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court recently slammed the State Medical Education Department for preferring a junior doctor for the post of Professor over a Senior doctor in the same department.
Slapping a fine of Rs 25,000 on the Department, the Court has also issued an order to give the benefit of promotion to the concerned senior doctor from 2016.
"The petitioner be treated as promoted to the post of Professor from 1.4.2016 with all consequential benefits as he was found suitable by the DPC but was not promoted due to non-submission of an affidavit. The petition is allowed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by respondents no.1 to 3 as he suffered the agony of non-promotion when it was due to him and was made to work under his junior," the HC bench stated in the order.
Both doctors were appointed as Assistant Professors in MGM Medical College, Indore. Thereafter, both had been promoted to the post of Associate Professor and became eligible for the promotion to the post of professor in the department of surgery.
The service conditions of those two doctors are governed under the provisions of the Swashashi Chikitsa Mahavidyalay Ke Samvardhan Evam Saviliyan Sambandhi Niyam, 1998.
After being promoted to the post of Associate Professor on 11.06.2007, the petitioner doctor became due for promotion to the post of Professor under the Rules of 1998. Following this, a DPC was held on March 29, 2016 and the name of the petitioner doctor and the junior doctor were both considered for promotion.
It has been submitted by the petitioner that he is a senior to the other doctor as per the gradation list of the department published in the years 2009, 2011 and 2014. But ignoring his claim of promotion, the DPC recommended the name of the junior doctor for the promotion to the post of Professor and accordingly, promotion order was issued. Therefore, the petitioner doctor approached the HC bench.
Responding to the plea, the Government authorities submitted that the petitioner doctor was not considered for promotion since he did not submit an affidavit for transfer of his services as a Professor in the pool of the State Government. Since the other doctor had submitted the affidavit, his name was considered for promotion.
Further, it was submitted that Professors are liable to be transferred from one medical college to another medical college on the administrative ground. Therefore, the affidavit was obtained in compliance of the letter by the Medical Education Department of the State.
Filing a rejoinder in this regard, the petitioner doctor submitted that in the year 2020, the name of the petitioner was considered for promotion and any affidavit was not required for this purpose. Therefore, the doctor contended that the requirement of an affidavit dehors the rules, was demanded only to give out of turn promotion to the other doctor, who was not liable to be promoted before the petitioner.
After taking note of the submissions, the HC bench also perused the 1998 Rules and noted that in the entire rule, there is no such requirement of submitting any affidavit for transferring the services in the Government pool.
Holding the act of the authorities to be unjust, the bench noted,
"The demand for an affidavit from the associate professors was made on the basis of the internal communication letter dated 1.4.2016 written by the Medical Education Department in violation of the Rules of 1998, the internal communication cannot be overridden or prevail over the service Rules, therefore, the action of the respondents No. 1 to 3 was wholly unjustified and contrary to the Rules."
"There is no such requirement of submitting any affidavit for promotion to the post of Professor. The consent for transfer in the Government pool was taken with the intention to transfer the professor of autonomous medical colleges to other medical colleges but till date, respondent No. 4 has never been transferred from the MGM. The petitioner has wrongly been deprived of promotion for want of giving an affidavit and respondent No. 4 has been given undue favour by the respondents," it further noted.
"In the year 2020, when the petitioner was promoted no such affidavit was taken, therefore, it is apparent that such a requirement of the affidavit was imposed only to give promotion to respondent no.4 by way of undue advantage. Despite service respondent, No. 4 did not appear before this Court to justify his promotion over and above the petitioner," added the HC bench.
With this observation, the court set aside the promotion order dated 01.04.2016 and noted,
"Resultantly, the promotion of respondent no.4 to the post of Professor on the recommendation DPC dated 29.03.2016 is hereby quashed. The petitioner be treated as promoted to the post of Professor from 1.4.2016 with all consequential benefits as he was found suitable by the DPC but was not promoted due to non-submission of an affidavit."
"The petition is allowed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by respondents no.1 to 3 as he suffered the agony of non-promotion when it was due to him and was made to work under his junior," read the order.
To view the HC order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/mp-hc-order-207439.pdf
