In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court upheld the State Government’s decision to equate the experience of an Additional Professor with that of a Professor for the purpose of eligibility for the post of Principal in a government medical college. The court dismissed the appeal filed by Dr. Jitendra Singh Kushwaha against the judgment of a Single Judge, who had earlier upheld the State’s stance.
The division bench comprised Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar. The judgment, delivered by Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi on September 2, 2024, was in Special Appeal No. 46 of 2024 (Dr. Jitendra Singh Kushwaha v. State of UP and Others).
Background of the Case:
The dispute revolved around the interpretation of qualifications required for the post of Principal (Allopathy) in the Department of Medical Education, Uttar Pradesh. The controversy arose after the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) invited applications for this position through an advertisement dated December 22, 2020, requiring candidates to have at least 10 years of teaching experience, including a minimum of 5 years as a Professor.
Dr. Sheo Kumar, who had applied for the position, was provisionally selected. However, his selection was challenged by Dr. Jitendra Singh Kushwaha, who filed Writ-A No. 11798 of 2021, claiming that Dr. Kumar did not possess the requisite five years of experience as a Professor. The key issue ni around whether Dr. Kumar’s experience as an Additional Professor could be considered equivalent to that of a Professor, as required by the recruitment rules.
Legal Issues Involved:
1. Equivalence of Experience: The primary question before the court was whether the experience of an Additional Professor in a medical college should be treated as equivalent to the experience of a Professor for the purpose of eligibility criteria.
2. Interpretation of Recruitment Rules: Another significant issue was whether the state government’s decision to equate the experience of Additional Professors and Professors amounted to a change in the “rules of the game” after the selection process had begun.
3. Impact of Grade Pay Differences: The court also examined whether a difference in grade pay between the two posts could affect their equivalence.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
The court affirmed the view taken by the Single Judge and relied heavily on the clarifications provided by the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the National Medical Commission (NMC). The court noted that both the MCI and NMC had clearly stated that the posts of Additional Professor and Professor are equivalent in terms of qualifications, teaching experience, and responsibilities.
Quoting the judgment, the court observed:
“Both the MCI and NMC would be the only authorities to define the experience, and having defined in its wisdom the experience of a Professor to include the experience of an Additional Professor, this Court cannot sit in appeal to take a view contrary to what a body of experts in the field has taken.”
The court further stated that the orders issued by the State Government on January 10, 2022, and May 30, 2022, which treated the posts as equivalent, were consistent with the notifications, guidelines, and clarifications issued by the expert bodies and were merely clarificatory in nature.
The court dismissed the contention that the clarification amounted to changing the rules of the game mid-way, stating:
“The State Government, being the employer, has issued clarifications, and these clarifications cannot be said to be changing the rules of recruitment as to essential qualification in the midst of the selection process.”
Regarding the grade pay difference, the court clarified that such a difference does not render the posts non-equivalent when the nature of duties, responsibilities, and minimum qualifications required for the posts are the same. The court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sub-Inspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor, stating that the salary difference is the last criterion for determining equivalence.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Judge’s judgment that equated the posts of Additional Professor and Professor in terms of eligibility for the position of Principal. The court ruled that the State Government’s clarification was a legitimate interpretation of existing rules and did not constitute any change in the selection criteria.
Parties Involved:
– Appellant: Dr. Jitendra Singh Kushwaha
– Respondent No. 5/Petitioner: Dr. Sheo Kumar
– Counsel for Appellant: Awadh Behari Singh, Gaurav Pundir
– Counsel for Respondent No. 5: Ashok Khare (Senior Advocate), assisted by Kunal Shah
– Counsel for Respondent: Mohan Srivastava (State Counsel), Sayujya Singh, Vivek Kumar Singh (for National Medical Commission)
Case Number: Special Appeal No. 46 of 2024
