S. No.,Subject,Designation of the post,Minimum qualification,"Minimum teaching/research
experience",,,,
1-13,xxxx,xxxx,xxxx,Xxxx,,,,
14,PSYCHIATRY,(a) Professor,"M.D. in (Psychiatry);
Speciality Board of
Psychiatry and
Neurology (USA);
M.R.C. Psych. (UK)","As Associate Professor in Psychiatry
for five years in a Medical College or
a recognised teaching medical
institution such as AIMS New Delhi,
PGI Chandigarh, JIMIER
Pondicherry and such other
institutions, as are recognised by the
Medical Council of India.",,,,
,,(b) Associate Professor,-do-,"As Associate Professor in Psychiatry
for five years in a Medical College or
a recognised teaching medical
institution such as AIMS New Delhi,
PGI Chandigarh, JIMIER
Pondicherry and such other
institutions, as are recognised by the
Medical Council of India.",,,,
Class,,Category,,Designation of the post,,Grade,,"Method of
recruitment
A. Teaching Wing:,,,,,,,,
I,,,Principal,,"1200-
1900",,"By
promotion
from Class
II",
II,,,Professor,,"1200-
1900",,"By
promotion
from Class
III",
III,,,Associate Professor,,"1000-
1500",,"By
promotion
from Class
IV",
IV,,,Assistant Professor,,750-1350,,"By
promotion
form Class
V",
V,,,Lecturer including Clinical Psychologist (NonMedical),,600-1350,,"By direct
recruitment",
09.07.1998 having Masters Degree in Psychology. The appellant was appointed as lecturer in the Department of Psychiatry on 08.04.2008. The,,,,,,,,
respondent No.1 challenged the order dated 27.04.2011 vide which the present appellant was promoted on In-charge basis as Assistant Professor in,,,,,,,,
his own pay and grade. Grievance was that the respondent No.1/ petitioner was senior to him. The learned Single Judge opined that the respondent,,,,,,,,
No.1/ petitioner who was working as lecturer (Clinical Psychology Non Medical) was also fully eligible to be promoted as Assistant Professor in the,,,,,,,,
Department of Psychiatry. The writ petition was finally disposed of with the following directions:,,,,,,,,
“ For the reasons discussed, the writ petition is disposed of as under:",,,,,,,,
(i) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to refer case of the petitioner and respondent No.3 to Public Service Commission/ Departmental Promotion,,,,,,,,
Committee for accord of consideration to their promotion to the post of Assistant Professor in Psychiatry Department within two months from the,,,,,,,,
date of receipt of the order.,,,,,,,,
(ii) The Public Service Commission/ Departmental Promotion Committee shall take a decision in the matter within one month from the date, the matter",,,,,,,,
is received from respondent Nos.1 and 2.,,,,,,,,
(iii) The respondents may continue with the present arrangement, i.e. placement of respondent No.3 in her own pay and grade as Assistant Professor",,,,,,,,
till 31st December, 2012 or till promotion on substantive basis is made by respondents 1 and 2 to the post of Assistant Professor in Psychiatry",,,,,,,,
Department, on the recommendation of Public Service Commission/ Departmental Promotion Committee, whichever is earlier.",,,,,,,,
(iv) The arrangement in any case shall cease to have any effect from 31.12.2012. It is made clear that all questions regarding entitlement of petitioner,,,,,,,,
and respondent No.3 to the promotion in question, their experience as also the effect on prospects of the petitioner, having regard to the date, PH.D.",,,,,,,,
Degree in Clinical Psychology was awarded to her is left open to be looked into by the Public Service Commission/ Departmental Promotion,,,,,,,,
Committee.,,,,,,,,
(v) This order shall not stand in the way of either of the parties not satisfied with the recommendation made by the Public Service Commission/,,,,,,,,
Departmental Promotion Committee or the orders made upon such recommendation to work out her remedyâ€,,,,,,,,
9. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant herein regarding eligibility of the respondent No.1/ petitioner was rejected with the,,,,,,,,
following reasons:,,,,,,,,
“The argument is devoid of any substance for following reasons:,,,,,,,,
(a) The qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor in Column-4, Schedule II includes “equivalent qualificationâ€. It is, therefore,",,,,,,,,
not necessary that a,,,,,,,,
Lecturer working in Department of Psychiatry, having requisite experience but not M.D. (Psychiatry) Degree to her credit, is not eligible for",,,,,,,,
promotion as Assistant Professor in the Psychiatry Department. A “Lecturer†would be also eligible as long as he/she has “an equivalent,,,,,,,,
qualification.â€,,,,,,,,
(b) The General Note-2 to Schedule II reproduced above makes it clear that the Rule Makers have only set apart the post of Head of Department, for",,,,,,,,
promotion exclusively from amongst Associate Professors holding a recognised medical qualification. The exception carved out in case of Head of,,,,,,,,
Department obviously implies that all other positions, i.e. Associate Professor and Assistant Professor may be filled up by the eligible faculty Member",,,,,,,,
though not holding a recognised medical qualification. It follows that Non-Medical Teachers/Lecturers, i.e. Lecturers not holding a recognised Medical",,,,,,,,
Degree, have a right to be considered for promotion to all senior positions except that of Head of the Department.",,,,,,,,
(c) The General Note-3 expressly provides that a Non-Medical Teacher/Lecturer to be considered for promotion to a higher faculty position must hold,,,,,,,,
a PH.D. Degree and that M.SC. Degree would suffice only for his appointment against a junior faculty position, i.e. Lecturer/demonstrator. This",,,,,,,,
makes it amply clear that the Rule Makers contemplated that the Non-Medical Teachers/Lecturers would also be eligible for promotion to the higher,,,,,,,,
faculty positions like Assistant Professor and Associate Professors as long as they have Doctorate in the discipline to their credit.,,,,,,,,
(d) When we read Subject 14, Schedule II conjointly with General Notes 2 and 3, it appears that the PH.D. Degree held by a Non-Medical Lecturer is",,,,,,,,
to be treated as equivalent to M.D. (Psychiatry) within meaning of relevant entry in Column-4 of Schedule II against Subject 14 part (c), i.e. Assistant",,,,,,,,
Professor.,,,,,,,,
(e) This apart, the case projected by learned counsel for the respondents, if accepted, would lead to irrational and anomalous conclusions. In case, it is",,,,,,,,
accepted that Lecturer (Clinical Psychologist Non-Medical) is not eligible for promotion as Assistant Professor, the result would be that a Lecturer",,,,,,,,
(Clinical Psychologist Non-Medical) would stagnate in a post without any promotional avenue and retire as Lecturer (Clinical Psychologist Non-,,,,,,,,
Medical). Such interpretation would also render General Notes 2 and 3 and, in particular, General Note-3 meaningless, superfluous and redundant.",,,,,,,,
Therefore, interpretation of Subject 14, (c) as suggested by learned counsel for the respondents would be impermissible and not in conformity with",,,,,,,,
spirit and mandate of Rules.,,,,,,,,
(f) From the above discussion, it emerges that when we take a holistic view of the Rule position and read Subject 14 Schedule II conjointly with",,,,,,,,
General Notes 2 and 3, we arrived at the irresistible conclusion that the Lecturer (Clinical Psychologist Non-Medical) is equally eligible for promotion",,,,,,,,
as Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatry as the Lecturer shown at 14 (d) of the Schedule II.,,,,,,,,
10. A perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge shows that he had entered into arena of equating the qualifications possessed,,,,,,,,
by the respondent No.1 with the qualifications prescribed in the 1979 Rules. The Court does not have the expertise for that. In fact, the 1979 Rules",,,,,,,,
provide for a clear answer to that in the form of Note 5 in the General Notes, which has been extracted above. The Note clearly provides that",,,,,,,,
equivalent qualification referred to in the Schedule shall be determined by the Government in consultation with the Medical Council of India. In the,,,,,,,,
case in hand, it is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 was not having the qualification of MD in Psychiatry. The respondent No.1 claimed that she",,,,,,,,
had got Ph.D degree in Clinical Psychology in May, 2011. All what the respondent No.1 wanted was that her Ph.D qualification be treated as",,,,,,,,
equivalent. The equivalence of the aforesaid degree was required to be considered with reference to other qualifications mentioned for promotion to,,,,,,,,
the post of Assistant Professor. The learned Single Judge could not have opined on that equivalence.,,,,,,,,
11. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition filed by the",,,,,,,,
respondent No.1 is dismissed. The State is at liberty to determine, in consultation with the Medical Council of India, as to whether the qualification",,,,,,,,
possessed by the respondent No.1 was equivalent to the other qualifications required for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor as per the 1979,,,,,,,,
Rules and proceed further.,,,,,,,,
