Seniority Dispute in Medical University: Supreme Court Upholds Assistant Professor's Appointment

The Supreme Court of India in Pooran Chand vs. Chancellor & Others addressed an important issue regarding the appointment and seniority of an Assistant Professor in King George Medical University, Uttar Pradesh. The case revolved around whether the respondent’s prior experience should have been considered for seniority over the appellant and whether the High Court erred in quashing the appellant’s appointment.

The Supreme Court, while upholding the appellant’s appointment, set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, ruling that the challenge to the appointment was time-barred and lacked merit.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an advertisement issued by King George Medical University (KGMU) on March 15, 2005, inviting applications for the posts of Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors, and Lecturers.

The appellant, Pooran Chand, applied for the post of Assistant Professor, while the respondent, Dr. Jitendra Kumar Rao, applied for the post of Lecturer. After due consideration, the Selection Committee recommended their appointments, which were approved by the Executive Council on August 8, 2005. The appellant joined as an Assistant Professor on December 8, 2005, while the respondent joined as a Lecturer on August 8, 2005. The respondent was later promoted to Assistant Professor on August 8, 2007.

In 2009, the respondent submitted a representation to the Chancellor of the University, claiming seniority over the appellant. He argued that his experience as a Senior Research Fellow in the World Health Organization (WHO) should have been counted as teaching experience, making him eligible for appointment as an Assistant Professor at the time of initial recruitment.

Key Legal Issues Addressed

1. Whether the Respondent’s WHO Experience Qualified as Teaching Experience

The respondent argued that his tenure as a Senior Research Fellow should have been counted as teaching experience, which would have made him eligible for appointment as an Assistant Professor in 2005.

The University, however, stated that there was no provision in the Statutes to consider WHO research experience as teaching experience for faculty appointments.

2. Whether the Respondent’s Challenge to the Appointment Was Time-Barred

The appellant contended that the respondent had not challenged his appointment within the prescribed three-month period as required under Section 53 of the U.P. King George’s Medical University Act, 2002. The respondent’s representation to the Chancellor was made only in 2009, four years after the appointment, and only after he himself was promoted to Assistant Professor in 2007.

3. Whether the High Court Erred in Quashing the Appointment

The High Court had ruled in favor of the respondent, setting aside the Chancellor’s decision and directing the University to treat the respondent as having been appointed as an Assistant Professor from the beginning. The Supreme Court had to determine whether this ruling was legally sustainable.

Findings of the Court

1. WHO Experience Did Not Qualify as Teaching Experience

The Supreme Court agreed with the University’s position, stating:

“The University has informed that the experience of Dr. Rao for his service with the WHO as Senior Research Fellow in the teaching experience was not considered for the appointment on the post of Assistant Professor because there is no such scheme in the bylaws.”

The Court held that the respondent’s claim was meritless since the relevant statutes did not recognize WHO research experience as equivalent to teaching experience.

2. Challenge to Appointment Was Time-Barred

The Court emphasized that any challenge to an appointment must be raised within a reasonable time and held:

“Section 53 of the Act provides that any dispute regarding appointment in the University has to be raised within a period of three months. The respondent No.4 could not have raised any challenge to the appointment of the appellant after a lapse of more than three years.”

The Court criticized the respondent’s delay, noting that he had only raised the issue after his own promotion.

3. High Court Erred in Interfering with the Appointment

The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had wrongly set aside the appellant’s appointment, stating:

“The appellant was appointed through a proper selection process, and his appointment was never challenged within the stipulated time. The High Court committed an error in quashing the appointment and directing the respondent’s seniority over the appellant.”

Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s ruling, holding:

The appellant’s appointment as Assistant Professor was valid and should not have been disturbed.
The respondent’s claim to seniority was meritless, as his WHO experience did not count as teaching experience.
The challenge to the appointment was time-barred and should not have been entertained after several years.

Conclusion

This ruling establishes key principles regarding faculty appointments and seniority disputes in educational institutions:

Appointments must be challenged within a reasonable timeframe.
Teaching experience requirements must be strictly interpreted as per statutory provisions.
The judiciary should not interfere in well-settled appointments unless there is a clear legal violation.

By upholding the appellant’s appointment and rejecting the respondent’s delayed claims, the Supreme Court ensured stability in the faculty recruitment process and prevented unjustified disruptions in academic institutions.

Petitioner Name: Pooran Chand.
Respondent Name: Chancellor & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 29-01-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: pooran-chand-vs-chancellor-&-others-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-29-01-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category