Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In this case, the petitioner, a senior doctor working in the Psychiatry Department at Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH), approached the Patna High Court claiming that he was unfairly denied promotion to the position of Professor. He argued that he had been working in a teaching capacity since 1989 and therefore should have been considered senior to another doctor (the private respondent) who was promoted before him in 2006.

The petitioner based his claim on his appointment as a Psychiatrist in 1989, and he asserted that his teaching role since then should count towards his seniority. He pointed to a 1990 government notification that retrospectively recognized his position as a teaching post and highlighted that he had continuously received a Teaching Allowance.

However, the private respondent was officially recorded as working on a teaching post since February 1990 and had been promoted to Professor earlier. The petitioner was officially appointed as Assistant Professor in 1991, which was reflected in seniority lists published in 2008 and 2018. Importantly, the petitioner did not raise any objections when these seniority lists were released.

The State Government and the private respondent contended that the petitioner’s appointment in 1989 was to a non-teaching post and that the 1990 notification did not operate retroactively. Moreover, the petitioner had ample opportunity to challenge the seniority lists earlier but failed to do so, which undermined his claim.

After reviewing the records and arguments, the Hon’ble Court concluded that:

• The petitioner was indeed appointed to a non-teaching post in 1989.
• The 1990 notification did not retrospectively convert that post to a teaching one.
• The petitioner only officially joined the teaching cadre in 1991.
• The petitioner did not challenge the seniority lists in 2008 or 2018 when he had the chance.

Due to these reasons, the Court held that the petitioner could not be granted seniority over the private respondent, who had a valid teaching appointment since 1990. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the importance of timely objections in service-related matters, especially seniority and promotions. It also highlights that government notifications altering service conditions will not have retrospective effect unless clearly specified. The decision is significant for government employees, especially in the education and health sectors, as it sets a precedent that mere payment of allowances or departmental changes without proper appointment orders does not confer seniority rights.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

• Whether the petitioner’s appointment as Psychiatrist in 1989 could be considered a teaching post?
  • No. The Court held it was a non-teaching post as per the original appointment order.
• Does the 1990 notification retrospectively convert the 1989 non-teaching post into a teaching one?
  • No. The Court found no retrospective effect in the 1990 notification.
• Can the petitioner claim seniority over the private respondent based on 1989 appointment?
  • No. The Court noted that the private respondent was in a teaching role since 1990 and had seniority reflected in finalized lists.
• Is the petitioner barred from claiming seniority due to delay and laches?
  • Yes. The petitioner failed to object to the provisional seniority lists in 2008 and 2018, making the matter time-barred.

Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)

• Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Others v. State of Orissa & Others, (2010) 12 SCC 471
• Dr (Mrs) Shushma Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2006 (1) PLJR 73.

Case Title Dr Narendra Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar & Others

Case Number Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6206 of 2012

Citation(s)

2020 (1) PLJR 222

Coram and Names of Judges Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• Mr. Y V Giri, Sr. Advocate (for petitioner) assisted by M/s Sumit Kr. Jha, Pranav Kr.
• Mr. Harendra Pd. Singh, GA VIII and Mr. Amit Prakash, GA XIII (for State)
• Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Prabhat Kr. Singh (for respondent no. 8)

Link to Judgment

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNjIwNiMyMDEyIzEjTg==-XHhrT1FODcc=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.