In the first place, the High Court proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the appellants request for his transfer to the General Surgery was acceded to by the State Government.
4 Dr. Verma had such experience for 4 years 7 months 27 days.
Hence the Civil Appeal No.
The High Court came to the finding that the appellant had teaching experience in Plastic Surgery for a period of 3 years 8 months 3 days, while the respondent No.
In the said order, the name of the appellant was placed below the names of Dr. Mandal and Dr. Verma, which meant that the appellant was junior to them.
Being aggrieved by the said order making the appellant junior to Dr. Verma, the appellant moved the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution claiming 9 seniority over Dr. Verma.
The appellant, as stated already.,
1 in Civil Appeal No.
40 of 1981 is infructuous and liable to be dismissed.
3 in Civil Appeal No.
It is true that the appellant had requested for this transfer to the General Surgery Department, but instead of companyplying with his request it was ordered that though he would work in the Plastic Surgery Department, he would he deemed to have gained teaching experience in the Department of General Surgery.
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.8.
39 40 of 1981.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURlSDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
39 of 1981, and Dr. J. Alam, respondent No.
1990 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.
But, Mr. Tapas Roy, learned companynsel appearing, on behalf of the appellant in both the appeals, has expressly given up the challenge in respect of these two persons.
39 of 1981, which is the only effective appeal, relates to the seniority between the appellant Dr. Ramesh Chandra Sinha and the respondent No.
Tapas Roy and M.P. Jha for the Appellant.
4 was senior to the appellant and dismissed the writ petition.
transferred from the Plastic Surgery Unit to the General Surgery Department.
Goburdhan, D.P. Mukherjee and A.K. Jha for the Respondents.
It is number easily understand able how the appellant companyld be said to have gained experience in General Surgery when, as a matter of fact, he was teaching in Plastic Surgery in the new Unit of Plastic Surgery created with effect from January 2, l964 under Dr. R.N. Sinha, the Head of the Department.
d Dr. P.K. Verma.
It is number disputed before us that the question of seniority between the appellant and the respondent No.
We are, PG NO 568 accordingly, companycerned with the question of seniority between the appellant and Dr. P.K. Verma in Civil Appeal No.
The appellant has also challenged the seniority of Dr. S.L. Mandal, respondent No.
39 of 1981 and, as the appellant does number press the case against Dr. J. Alam, the Civil Appeal No.
The High Court took the view that the appellant companyld number fall back and claim that the said period should also be companynted as genuine teaching experience in Plastic Surgery.
The High Court has numberdoubt referred to this period, but it proceeded on the basis that during the said period the appellant had gained teaching experience in General Surgery, as stated in the affidavit of the State Government.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. The only point that is involved in one of these two appeals by special leave, namely, Civil Appeal No.
By an order dated September 29, 1478, the State Government appointed the appellant, Dr. S.L. Mandal and Dr. P.K. Verma, the Associate Professors of Plastic Surgery in the Patna Medical College.
Both the appellant and Dr. Verma are Plastic Surgeons.
Patna Medical College Hospital.
The High Court has also observed that during the said period the appellant on some occasion himself wanted a transfer to the General Surgery Department for gaining teaching experience in General Surgery and his request was acceded to by the State Government by allowing him to gain teaching experience in General Surgery.
The appellant, however, claims that he is senior to Dr. Verma and, accordingly, his name should have been placed above him in the said order of appointment.
40 of 1981.
650 of 1979 and 157 of 1478.
It appears from a letter dated December 21, 1963 of the appellant addressed to the Superintendent.
In that view of the matter, the High Court held that the respondent No.
has given up his case against Dr. Mandal.
Such an order was number asked for by the appellant.
that the appellant wanted a transfer to the Department of General Surgery.
4 will be resolved on the basis of the length of teaching experience in Plastic Surgery.
34 of 1981.
