Selection to one discipline cannot be converted into appointment in another discipline contrary to recruitment rules.

The applicant, holding an MBBS, MS (General Surgery), and DNB (Urology) was appointed as a Medical Officer in 2001 and later posted to the Super Specialty Hospital (SSH) Jammu to utilize his urology specialization

In March 2019, he was selected through the Public Service Commission (PSC) and substantively appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Surgery

Despite this, his services continued to be utilized in the Urology Department due to a shortage of specialists

The applicant sought permanent absorption as a Lecturer in Urology, claiming parity with one Dr. Rahul Gupta, who had been absorbed via lateral entry previously

The respondents contested, stating that the applicant’s substantive appointment is in Surgery and that recruitment for Lecturer in Urology is governed by separate rules requiring 100% direct recruitment via the PSC

1. Whether a candidate substantively appointed as a Lecturer in one discipline (Surgery) can claim permanent absorption in another discipline (Urology) based on possession of qualifications and temporary utilization of services

2. Whether the principle of parity under Article 14 can be invoked to seek absorption contrary to statutory recruitment rules

Recruitment Rules for Super Specialties of Government Medical Colleges, Jammu/Srinagar (G.O. No. 181-HME of 2011 and G.O. No. 453-HME of 2012), which mandate that the post of Lecturer in Urology be filled 100% by direct recruitment through the Public Service Commission

The Supreme Court precedent in Suraj Parkash Gupta v. State of J&K, which prohibits the relaxation of basic recruitment rules for direct recruitment and emphasizes adherence to statutory mechanisms

The doctrine of "Negative Equality" was also applied, establishing that Article 14 cannot be used to perpetuate an illegality or irregularity committed in a previous case

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s substantive appointment as a Lecturer in Surgery, accepted by him in 2019, does not confer a right to move to the Urology cadre, as both are distinct services governed by different recruitment criteria

The court observed that since the 2011/2012 Rules specifically prescribe 100% direct recruitment for the post of Lecturer in Urology, any order for absorption or lateral entry would bypass the statutory process and prejudice other eligible candidates who might apply through the PSC

Regarding the claim of parity with Dr. Rahul Gupta, the Tribunal held that administrative exigencies or past irregularities do not create a vested legal right, as there is no "negative equality" under the Constitution; a mandamus cannot be issued to compel an authority to act contrary to law

The applicant's work in the SSH was deemed a temporary administrative arrangement for patient care, which cannot ripen into a permanent cadre appointment

The Transfer Application was dismissed. The Tribunal clarified that while the applicant cannot be absorbed, he remains free to participate in future selection processes for the post of Lecturer in Urology as and when advertised by the PSC, provided he meets the eligibility criteria