State
of Uttar Pradesh & Anr Vs. Dr. K.U. Ansari &
Ors [2001] Insc 619 (22 November 2001)
D.P.
Mohapatra & Shivaraj V. Patil D.P.Mohapatra, J.
With
Civil Appeal No. of 2001 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.3429 of 2000)
Leave
granted in both the cases.
The State
of Uttar Pradesh, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical
Education and the Director, Medical Education and Training, have filed these
appeals challenging the judgments rendered by the Allahabad High Court, in
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition Nos.14686/88 and in Civil Miscellaneous Writ
Petition No.15989/87. Both the writ petitions were filed by Dr. K.U.Ansari,
respondent no.1 herein, citing the appellants, Dr. S.S.Mishra, retired
Director, Medical Education, U.P., the Principal, Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Dr. A.K.Kapoor, Lecturer in
Pharmacology, Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and some other officers of the
Department of Pharmacology in he Medical Colleges at Meerut and Kanpur as respondents. In Writ Petition No.14686/88 the prayer of
the petitioner was for quashing the adverse character roll entries for the
years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1984-85 and to direct the respondent to grant the
Efficiency Bar to the petitioner from 1.7.1982 instead of 1984. In W.P.No.15989/87
the petitioner prayed for quashing of the selection made by the Departmental
Promotion Committee on 7.7.1987 for the post of Reader in Pharmacology and for
quashing the appointment of respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition.
In the
Writ Petition No.147686/88 the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed
the order of the State Government dated 22.4.1988 permitting the petitioner to
cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from 1984 and directed the respondents to
permit the petitioner to cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from 1.7.1982. In
the later case the High Court referring to its decision in the aforementioned
case held that the petitioner should have been considered for the post of
Reader in Pharmacology in the Selection held on 7.7.1987 and issued a direction
that the Departmental Promotion Committee shall consider the petitioners claim
for promotion as Reader with retrospective effect from 7.7.1987.
The
relevant portion of the order is quoted here under :
The
petitioner was promoted as Reader on 14.1.1999 but in our opinion the
petitioner should have been considered in 1987 but he was not considered then
in view of the adverse entries which we have quashed in the aforesaid petition.
Hence
we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the Departmental
Promotion Committee shall now consider the petitioners claim for promotion as
Reader with retrospective effect from 7.7.87 and this shall be done within two
months of production of certified copy of this order before the authority
concerned. If the DPC allows the petitioners claim arrears of salary shall be
given to the petitioner within three months there from.
Both
these cases are interlinked as the judgment in the later case has been passed
as a consequence of the judgment in the former case. Therefore, both the
appeals were heard together and they are disposed of by this judgment.
The
core question that arises for determination in the case relates to validity
and/or justification of the entries made in the character rolls of respondent
No.1 for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81. Though, a similar entry made in respect
of the year 1984-85 was also challenged in the writ petition that entry is no
longer in issue since the State Government accepting the representation made by
respondent No.1 expunged the entry. Undisputedly the sole reason for refusal of
the State Government to permit the respondent No.1 to cross the Efficiency Bar
with effect from 1.7.1982 was the adverse entries in the character rolls. The
adverse entries in the character roll for the two years are similar in nature;
they were communicated to the respondent No.1 by the letter dated 21.2.1984
from the Director to the Principal, Medical College, Allahabad. The entry made for the year 1979-80 against Item No.4
reads as under:
(1)
Interest in Research Work - No (2) Publication of Research Work - - In respect
of the year 1980-81 the entries in question against Item No.4 reads :
(A)
Interest in Research Works - No (B) Publication of Research Work - Wrote one
article The respondent no.1 submitted a representation on receipt of the
communication of the adverse entries to the State Government through proper
channel seeking expunction of the same on the grounds, inter alia, that the
entries are factually incorrect and legally untenable. The said respondent
further contended that it was absolutely incorrect to state that he had no
interest in research work, when in fact he had published more than 40 research
papers by then. The Head of the Department of Pharmacology who was the
immediate superior authority of respondent no.1 about his interest in research
work and that such work undertaken by him was highly satisfactory. The
respondent further alleged that the entries were vitiated on account of bias
and malice on the part of the Principal of the Medical College and they were
intended to help Dr. A.K.Kapoor who was much junior to the respondent as
Lecturer, to get promotion to the rank of Reader in the Pharmacology
Department. The representation in respect of the two years in question was
rejected by the State Government.
Therefore,
the respondent no.1 filed the writ petition for the reliefs noted earlier.
It is
relevant to note that so far as the writ petitioner is concerned the Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad was the reporting officer at the
relevant time, the Principal of the Medical College was the authority to record the
entries and the Secretary in the Department of Medical Education and Training
was the authority to confirm the entry.
After
the representation of respondent no.1 against the adverse C.C.R. entries were
rejected he was taken as a person who crossed the Efficiency Bar in 1984 and on
that basis he was not considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion
Committee in July, 1987. He was given promotion as Reader longer thereafter in
January, 1999. The case of respondent no.1 in the second writ petition filed
against non-consideration for promotion to the post o Reader was that if the
adverse entries which are factually incorrect and vitiated by bias and malice
are expunged and consequently the order declining permission to cross the
Efficiency Bar with effect from 1.7.1982 are quashed then his case for
promotion should have been considered by the D.P.C. in July, 1987 since by then
he had acquired the eligibility qualifications for promotion to the post of
Reader.
We
have perused the judgment of the High Court in W.P.No.14686/88 which is
assailed by the appellant in the appeal. The judgment extends over 8 pages of
which major portion is devoted to the cases pleaded by the parties and the
contentions raised by counsel appearing on their behalf.
The
relevant discussion commences from the latter part of page 7 in which it has
been observed, inter alia, that there is no rule or regulation under which a
Lecturer is required to do research work; that if a Lecturer also does research
work that would be an additional qualification for considering him for
promotion, but that is not his main job; that the main job of a Lecturer is to
teach. On these observations the High Court has drawn the inference in the
following terms :
Hence
even assuming that the petitioner did not do research work this could at most
affect his chances of promotion, but adverse entry should not have been given
to him and the petitioner cannot be stopped from crossing efficiency bar on
this account.
If the
petitioner was doing teaching work property and attending to his duties no
adverse entry can be given merely because he has not done research work.
Summing
up its conclusion, the High Court observed:
A lecturers
work is basically teaching work and there is no requirement that he must be in
addition do research work.
Hence
in our opinion the impugned adverse entries are wholly arbitrarily and illegal
and are quashed.
From
the discussions in the judgment quoted above, it appears that the High Court
has drawn a distinction between considerations for crossing the efficiency bar
and those for promotion. The High Court has taken the view that research work
is not necessary for judging the efficiency of a teacher of the medical college
though it may be an "additional qualification for the purpose of
promotion. The observations and findings recorded by the High Court in the
judgment are clearly erroneous. We are indeed perplexed to find that the High
Court has propounded a principle that in the 21st Century a teacher in a
medical college need not engage himself in any research work. The concept is
not only out of tune with time but an impediment on improving the standard of
teaching in medical colleges. If the observations/findings are accepted as
correct then it will mean encouraging mediocrity in the line of medical
teaching.
Research
by a teacher in medical college is desirable and relevant for maintaining a
high degree of proficiency in teaching. Medical science has progressed very
much in recent times and constant efforts are being made in institutions
engaged in medical education and research all over the globe for further
development in different specialities. In such state of things to take a view
that research is not relevant for a teacher in medical college for the crossing
of efficiency bar or even promotion (stated to be only an additional
qualification) is not correct. We have no hesitation to hold that the
observations and findings of the High Court to which reference has been made
earlier are unsustainable. Crossing of efficiency bar is a well recognised
means of monitoring the efficiency of the employee which helps him to make
progress in his service career. In the expression efficiency are included all
relevant matters necessary for discharging his duties efficiently and
satisfactorily. In the case of a teacher, particularly a teacher in medical
college, it is absolutely necessary that he keeps abreast of all developments
in the field of the medical science of his specialisation and he can achieve
this better if he is engaged in research work. The manner in which he carries
out the research and assessment of the results he obtains are matters of
scrutiny by experts; but it cannot be said that a teacher in medical college is
not expected to do any research. In order to teach his students properly the
teacher has to maintain a high degree of proficiency in the subject. It is
relevant to note here that in the prescribed format for making entries in the
character roll there is a column relating to research work done by the teacher.
This, in our view, is sufficient to hold that the authorities did consider and
in our view rightly research to be a relevant consideration for the purpose of
making proper assessment of the employee. The position is well settled that
while making entries in the character roll proper assessment on the basis of
objective standards should be made since character roll is a primary material
which forms the basis for further progress of the employee in his service
career. The entries in the character roll are necessary and material for the
purpose of permitting the employee to cross the efficiency bar as well as for
promotion. Unfortunately, the observations and findings of the High Court tend
to indicate as if crossing of efficiency bar is a matter of course and an idle
formality. Such impression, as noted earlier, is clearly erroneous. Therefore,
the judgment of the High Court in W.P.No.14686/88 is unsustainable and has to
be set aside. Since the judgment in the other case i.e. W.P.No.15989/87 is
entirely based on the judgment in the said writ petition, that has also to be
set aside.
The
question that remains to be considered is what will be the appropriate order to
be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case. As discussed earlier the
question to be considered is whether the respondent no.1 was to be considered
for crossing the efficiency bar as a lecturer w.e.f. 1.7.1982 instead of 1984
and should have been considered for promotion as Reader in July, 1987 instead
of January, 1999. It is the case of the respondent no.1 that during the
relevant period he had done research and had produced papers which were
appreciated by the superior authorities. A long time has elapsed since the
events giving rise to the grievance of respondent no.1 took place. Both the
teachers concerned are senior in their cadres. If the respondent no.1 on
consideration of the matter is found suitable for promotion with effect from a
retrospective date whether he could be given the service benefits of the
promotional post depends on several factors including the availability of
vacancy at the relevant point of time. We are of the view that in the facts and
circumstances of the case it would be proper to direct the Chie Secretary of
the State of U.P. to consider the representation made by the writ petitioner
Dr. K.U.Ansari after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to him and to Dr.
A.K.Kapoor, respondent no.4 herein, and dispose of the same by passing a
reasoned order.
Accordingly,
the appeals are allowed. The judgments of the High Court under challenge are
set aside.
The
order rejecting the representation made by the respondent no.1 is also set
aside. The Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to consider the representation submitted by
respondent no.1 keeping in mind the discussions in this judgment and dispose of
the same after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondents by
passing a reasoned order as expeditiously within three months of production of
copy of the judgment before him. There will be no order as to costs.
................................J.
(D.P.MOHAPATRA)
................................J.
Back
