Dismissed

Dr. Vibhu Priyadarshi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC13 Feb 2015C. REV./500/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a review petition challenging an order regarding inter se seniority of Assistant Professors. The Court held that the respondent who joined the post earlier retains seniority over the petitioner who joined belatedly, despite the petitioner's higher ranking in the selection list.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed; order dated 25.8.2011 in LPA No. 773 of 2011 affirmed.

Dr. Vibhu Priyadarshi Vs the State of Bihar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Review No.500 of 2011

¶3

¶4

Letters Patent Appeal No. 773 of 2011

¶5

¶6

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1763 of1998

¶7

=========================================================== Dr. Vibhu Priyadarshi S/O Shri Brij Kishore Prasad M.O Flat No. -8, P.M.C.H, Campus, Patna.

¶8

.... .... Petitioner Versus

¶9

The State of Bihar Through The Commissioner And Secretary, Health Medical Education And Family Welfare Department, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna.

¶10

Deputy Secretary, Health Medical Education And Family Welfare Department, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna.

¶11

Dr. A.K.Gupta, Assistant Professor, (Cardiology), Darbhanga Medical College, Darbhanga.

¶12

Dr. Kameshwar Prasad. Assistant Professor (General Medicince), Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad. 5. Dr. Ramdeo Sahu, Assistant Professor (Paediatrics), Patliputra Medical Collge, Dhanbad, 6. Dr. Shankar Prasad Sinha, Assistant Professor (General Surgery), Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad.

¶13

Dr. Sudhir Kumar Singh, S/O Late Lakhneshwar Singh Village- Rarauni, (West Tola), District- Supaul.

¶14

Dr. Ram Shankar Sinha, S/O Late Kailash Bihar Sinha Associate Professor (General Medicine), Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad. 9. Dr. Indudhar Narain Jha, S/O Late Jagdhar Jha New Colony, Jagjivan Nagar, P.S- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad.

¶15

Dr. Shambhu Nath Jha, S/O Late Sita Nath Jha Associate Professor (Paediatrics), Patliputra Medical Collge, Dhanbad.

¶16

.... .... Respondent/s

¶17

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramendra Nath Mukhopadhyay For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madhukar Kirshna Sinha, SC 1 Mr. Sunil Kumar Karn, AC to SC 1 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶18

and

¶19

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 13-02-2015

¶20

This Review Application is filed with a prayer to review the order dated 25.8.2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 773 of 2011.

¶21

Patna High Court C. REV. No.500 of 2011 dt.13-02-2015

¶22

2/3

¶23

Briefly stated, facts of the case are as follows :

¶24

The petitioner herein was one of the six petitioners in CWJC No. 1763 of 1998 which was filed before this Court raising several disputes as to the service conditions of the petitioners therein. To the extent concerned the petitioner herein, the dispute was between himself and the third respondent in relation to the inter se seniority. The learned Single Judge rejected that contention and dismissed the writ petition. The order passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed in the appeal through order dated 25.8.2011. Review of the said order is sought in this petition.

¶25

Heard Sri R N Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Madhukar Krishna Sinha, learned counsel for the State.

¶26

The principal ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner therein was that pursuant to the selection of the Assistant Professors undertaken by the Government of Bihar in 1980 a panel was prepared by the Selection Committee where he figured at sl.no.2 and respondent no.3 at sl.no.3. His contention was that the seniority of the persons selected in the same panel is to be decided according to the ranking assigned by the Selection Committee and the mere fact that the 3^rd respondent joined at an earlier point of time does not make any difference. The learned Single Judge took note of this contention and in a way re-affirmed the principle that the ranking assigned by the Selection Committee shall determine the seniority of the persons so selected. The exception where the persons, though figured in the same panel have been issued orders of appointment on different dates, was also noticed.

¶27

It is not in dispute that though the petitioner was selected as Assistant Professor in Cardiology, he refused to join that post whereas the 3^rd respondent joined that post immediately on being issued order of appointment. The petitioner who hesitated initially to

¶28

Patna High Court C. REV. No.500 of 2011 dt.13-02-2015

¶29

3/3

¶30

join as Assistant Professor in Cardiology ultimately came forward with a request that he may be appointed as Assistant Professor in General Medicine. This has resulted in belated appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Professor. It hardly needs an emphasis that the date of appointment of an employee in a particular cadre continuity be an important factor for determining the seniority. That would, in a way prevail over the ranking assigned by the Selection Committee. It is only when all the employees that figured in the selection list have been issued orders of appointment on the same date that the ranking becomes important. The mere fact that one of the persons who figured in the common order of appointment or the orders of appointment issued on the same day joined earlier, does not disturb the ranking assigned by the Selection Committee. That is not the case here.

¶31

The order passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 773 of 2011 is totally in accordance with the settled principle of law. Therefore, we do not find any basis to interfere with the same. At any rate, review cannot be a forum in the nature of further appeal.

¶32

We, therefore, dismiss the review petition.

¶33

Interlocutory Application, if any, shall stand disposed

¶34

of.

¶35

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

(L. Narasimha Reddy,CJ)

¶37

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

¶38

mrl

¶39

Dr. Vibhu Priyadarshi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Vibhu Priyadarshi v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hare Ram Das and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

College of Comerce Staff Co-Op Vs Tthe Vice-Chancellor,Magadh Un

Babban Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Babu Singh Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Chandradeo Bhagat and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Lakshmi Kant Sah Vs Jagdeo Ram and Ors.