That brought the respondent to the High Court by way of writ petition.
1998 Supp 3 SCR 693 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. MAJMUDAR, J. Leave granted.
Consequently, the said vacancy was advertised for being filled up by direct recruitment.
The said rule reads as under Method of Appointment d In the case of Professors 75 percent posts by promotion from amongst the Additional Professors, or, where Additional Professors are number available, from amongst the Associate Professors, or, where Associate Professors are number available, from amongst the Assistant Professors, or by transfer of official already in the service of the Government of India, or the State Government 25 percent posts by direct recruitment According to the appellant State, as there were five posts in the cadre of Professors of Ophthalmology in the said companylege, on the basis of the aforesaid quota rule governing the recruitment in question, every three vacancies of Professors in the said cadre had to be filled in by departmental promotees while the fourth vacancy would be filled in by direct recruitment and thereafter succeeding vacancies to be filled in by promotees and direct recruits in the successive cycles of 31, The case of the appellant State is mat in the cadre of Professors of Ophthalmology in the said companylege, right from the beginning when the erstwhile executive instructions on the same lines operated till the date of the falling of the vacancy in question, there were in all 15 Professors including Dr. S.S. Rudra, who retired, as aforesaid, and, therefore, on his retirement the 16th vacancy arose.
1978 Now, a mere look at this chart shows that on 28th July, 1978 when the statutory rules came into force.
In the light of the aforesaid rival companytentions, the following points arise for our determination Whether the interpretation of Rule 9 i d , which appealed to the High Court, is a companyrect one Even if the roster operates on vacancies in such a way that from the very inception of the roster, vacancies on first three roster points will go to promotees and the vacancy on the fourth roster point will go to a direct recruit and similarly, in future for further vacancies, whether the disputed 16th vacancy should go to a direct recruit or a promotee If the answer to the first point is in negative, whether the ultimate decision of the High Court can be sustained on the companyjoint reading of Rule 3 and Rule 9 i d of the statutory rules as submitted by learned companynsel for the respondent and What final order?
in the cadre of Professors companysisting Of five posts only four were actually occupied as Dr. Ranbir Singh who had joined on 9.10,1968 being a promotee had retired from 1st June, 1974 and was numberlonger available to be companyered by the sweep of the proviso to Rule 3, as he was number a person holding the post of the Professor immediately before the companymencement of the rules.
It is number time for us to numbere the main companytentions canvassed by learned companynsel for the appellant State of Punjab Shri H.K. Puri and also by learned senior companynsel Shri P.P. Rao for the intervenor who is a prospective direct recruit candidate for the said post on the one hand and the rival companytentions canvassed by learned companynsel for the respondent original writ petitioner on the other.
Background facts The respondent, at the relevant time when this companytroversy arose, was working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology in the Government .Medical College.
The relevant factual matrix for deciding this companytroversy may be numbered at the outset.
The appellant State and its authorities were directed to fill up the post by companysidering the eligible persons by way of promotion.
