CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has pulled up the State Health Secretary for not giving an opportunity to Dr A N Chandrasekaran, who retired in 1995, for promotion to the post of Director of Medical Services (DMS).
“Admittedly, no such opportunity was given to Dr Chandrasekaran. When that be so, in my considered opinion, denial of promotion to the petitioner as DMS is not only irregular but also illegal,” Justice S Nagamuthu observed in his judgment delivered recently.
The judge was disposing of a writ petition from Dr Chandrasekaran to declare as illegal an amendment made to a Government Order dated November 29, 1993 and a consequent notification dated December 6, 1993, which excluded civil surgeons teaching in hospitals to the post of Director of Medical Services.
Petitioner was promoted as civil surgeon in rheumetology in 1979. He was also professor and head of department of rheumatology in Madras Medical College.
Prior to the amendment of the Special Rules on November 29, 1993, the post of DMS was filled up by promotion from among the approved probationers in the category of civil surgeons in general line. The amendment stipulated that no person should be eligible for appointment to the post of DMS unless he had worked for a period of not less than five years in a post in the cadre of civil surgeon under the control of the Director of Medical Services.
Petitioner, as per the seniority list of civil surgeons during August 1995, was placed at No 2. The civil surgeon who was placed at No 1, had given up his claim for promotion.
Since the petitioner was in the next place in the list of seniority, he should have been promoted as DMS. But the amended rule prevented his promotion. Hence the present writ petition.
Petitioner contended that prior to the amendment, a person working either as assistant surgeon or civil surgeon in the teaching side could also be transferred and posted to the non-teaching side.
But a person who was all along working in a non-teaching post could not be transferred and posted to a teaching post since he would not have experience.
When a person was appointed to the post of assistant surgeon, he was asked to choose between teaching and non-teaching posts.
If the individual chose to work in the non-teaching side, he could never be transferred to a teaching post because he lacked teaching experience. To work in the non-teaching side, no such experience was required.
But no such option was given to him, petitioner added.
Disposing of the petition, the judge observed that at the time when petitioner opted to work in the teaching side, the rule prescribing minimum five years of experience in the cadre of civil surgeon under the control of the DMS had not been introduced.
When the said condition was imposed through the amendment, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to choose either to continue teaching, but, admittedly no such option was given to him, the judge noted.
feedback@epmltd.com