Seniority Among RIMS Employees To Be Based On Order Of Merit In Selection: Jharkhand High Court

The Division Bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar added that in this system, individuals selected earlier would be considered senior to those selected later in a given block. The process for creating a seniority list for individuals selected within the same selection committee would involve several specific steps.

“The seniority of the employees of the Institute in each category shall be determined by the order of merit in which they were selected for appointment to the Grade in question, those selected on an earlier occasion being ranked senior as a block to those selected later.; the preparation of seniority list of persons selected in the same selection committee would involve the steps.”

The above ruling came in a plea against the judgment passed by the Single Judge in a writ petition where the claim seeking seniority over respondent no.4 was declined.

In the case at hand, both the appellant and respondent No. 4 were appointed as Medical Officers under the State in 1990. A seniority list was created, placing the appellant at serial no. 997 with a seniority position of 603, and respondent no. 4 at serial no.1126 with a seniority position of 1399.

Later, both the appellant and respondent no. 4 were deputed to work as Tutors under RIMS, based on orders from the competent authority of the State Government. They subsequently transitioned to the role of Assistant Professors and began their duties in this capacity.

While serving as Assistant Professors, an advertisement was published, inviting applications for various positions, including Tutor, Senior Resident, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor. One of the conditions in the advertisement was that candidates working in Government or Semi-Government organizations needed to obtain a No-Objection Certificate to apply. The advertisement indicated that all positions were to be filled through direct recruitment.

Both the appellant and respondent no. 4 applied for the position of Associate Professor, adhering to the requirement of obtaining a No-Objection Certificate from the State Government, where their 'lien' was in place for the Medical Officer position.

Both applicants were successful, with respondent No. 4 obtaining higher marks than the appellant. The seniority of the appellant and respondent No. 4 was determined by RIMS based on their marks in the selection process. The appellant raised an objection after her seniority was fixed below that of respondent no. 4. She argued that since she held the position of Medical Officer with her 'lien' in the State Government, where she was senior to respondent no. 4, RIMS had no jurisdiction to revise her seniority.

Aggrieved by the decisions of the authorities, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was subsequently dismissed, and consequently, the appellant filed an intra-court appeal.

The following issues were to be considered and answered by the Court:

(i) Whether the ‘lien’ on deputation of the appellant as Tutor in RIMS still lies with the post of Medical Officer under the State Government?

(ii) Whether the ‘lien’ will stand terminated automatically the moment the appellant and respondent no.4 joined the post of Associate Professor?

(iii) Whether the appointment of the appellant and respondent no.4 are to be considered by way of promotion or through direct recruitment?

The Court noted that the RIMS, formerly known as Rajendra Medical College and Hospital, was initially under the control of the State Government. However, to grant autonomy to this institution, the State introduced the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 2002 (Act 10 of 2002).

Furthermore, the Court observed that this Act granted autonomous status to RIMS, limiting the State's involvement in its day-to-day operations, except for certain oversight responsibilities outlined in Section 29 of the Act, 2002. The Court conducted a detailed examination of this Act and explained that RIMS no longer operated under the direct control of the State Government.

Instead, it was to be governed according to the statutory provisions set forth in the Act, 2002 and the Regulation, 2014. The State's authority was restricted to ensuring that RIMS adhered to policy decisions aimed at the welfare of the people of Jharkhand, as determined by the State government.

The Court emphasized that the State was explicitly barred from interfering in the daily operations of RIMS, including matters related to appointments and promotions. This, according to the Court, encapsulated the essence and intent of the Act, 2002.

The court also referenced Rules 68, 69, and 70, which address the concept of "lien." Rule 68 specifies that "lien" on a post ceases upon substantive appointment to a permanent post. Rules 69 and 70 deal with various scenarios involving different posts.

The Court carefully considered the argument regarding the appellant's appointment being on probation for two years, which was initially temporary. However, the Court observed that the appellant had been diligently performing her duties since her appointment on 29.10.2012. Therefore, the Court held that the appellant could not claim her services were still on probation.

Furthermore, the Court raised a critical question: if the appellant's argument about her service being temporary was accepted, it would raise concerns about how both the appellant and respondent no.4 were promoted to the position of Professor. The Court emphasized a well-established legal principle that promotions to higher positions are granted only to those holding substantive posts. In this case, the promotion granted to the appellant and respondent no.4 was coupled with the continuation of their service, confirming that their services were under the regular establishment of the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS).

The Court pointed out Rule 68 of the Service Code, which clearly states that the 'lien' on the earlier post ceases to exist the moment a government servant joins their service in a substantive capacity on a permanent post. Therefore, the Court concluded that the appellant's and respondent no.4's services were indeed under the regular establishment of RIMS, and the argument regarding the temporary nature of their appointments was not valid.

“Various steps have been given but we are concerned with the parameter fixed for seniority which is based upon the merit position of the appellant and the respondent no.4 and instructions as has been provided in the regulation, the seniority is to be determined by the order of merit in which they were selected for appointment,” the Court said.

The court examined the Regulation of 2014, which provided the basis for determining seniority. It clarified that the Regulation's application was not retrospective, as it aimed to establish a system for seniority irrespective of the appointment date.

Additionally, the Court observed that the Single Judge had also taken into consideration the marks obtained by both parties, leading to the preparation of a merit list. In this list, respondent no.4 was positioned at serial no.1, while the appellant, also the writ petitioner, was placed at serial no.2.

“The Single Judge, by taking into consideration the principle for deciding the seniority as available under Schedule IV(5) wherein the seniority is to be decided by the order of merit position in which they were selected for appointment, came to the conclusion that the seniority was fixed of the appellant keeping her below the respondent no.4, the same has not been faulted with.”

The court upheld the decision of the Single Judge who had considered the principles laid out in Schedule IV(5) of the Regulation 2014. The appellant's lower ranking in the seniority list relative to respondent no.4, based on the merit of their selection, was found to be in accordance with the law.

The appeal was thus dismissed.

Appearance for the Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Advocate Ms. Shreesha Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate

For State: Mrs. Amrita Banerjee, AC to GP-I

For R.I.M.S.: Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocate Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate Mr. Nilesh Modi, Advocate

For respondent no.4 : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Vishnu Kumar Mahto, Advocate

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 77

Case Title: Dr. Kumari Sandhya @ Kumari Sandhya v. State of Jharkhand & Ors

Case No:LPA No 125 of 2022

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement