Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
CASE NO.:
Special Leave Petition (civil) 1957 of 2000
PETITIONER:
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DR.K.U.ANSARI & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/11/2001
BENCH:
D.P. Mohapatra & Shivaraj V. Patil
JUDGMENT:
With
Civil Appeal No. of 2001
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.3429 of 2000)
J U D G M E N T
D.P.Mohapatra, J.
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
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 hereunder :
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 therefrom.
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
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.
(SHIVARAJ V.PATIL)
November 22, 2001
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6