STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: A Division Bench of State High Court comprising Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Tashi Rabstan on Monday dismissed the Letter Patents Appeal (LPA) filed by Dr. Shashi Gupta against the judgment of Writ Court whereby it directed the Commissioner Secretary, Health and Medical Education Department to treat the promotion of Dr Shashi Gupta on the post of Assistant Professor with effect from April 23, 1995, the date recommended by Public Service Commission and not to confer any benefit of seniority or experience for the period of dies non as the Bench found no merit in the LPA.
The Division Bench after hearing Advocate Abhinav Sharma for the appellant whereas Senior Advocate U.K Jalali for Dr. Indu Kaul and Deputy AG Sanjeev Padha for the State, observed that the appellant firmly believes that even if the period of ‘dies non’ were to be excluded, she would still figure senior to the private respondent herein. “If that is so, even if the inter se seniority is re-determined between the appellant and the private respondent herein, the same would not, in the ordinary course, be a direction, which would affect the interest of the appellant and, therefore, even if such a direction is passed, the appellant should have no grievance. In any case, it would be appropriate that the official respondents do the requisite exercise, which becomes necessary especially in view of the directions to the respondents to determine as to whether the promotion to the post of Professor granted in favour of the appellant was in contravention of the recommendations of Public Service Commission. Any finding in the affirmative would also bring the appellant lower in seniority although she claims that she would still figure senior to the private respondent. In any case, the direction to re-determine the seniority inter se between the appellant and the private respondent, suffers from no illegality and cannot be interfered with”, the DB observed adding that an apprehension was expressed by the appellant that in the garb of re-determining the seniority, inter se, between the appellant and the private respondent, the Government was likely to promote the private respondent from dates earlier in point of time from which she stood promoted.
“This, according to the counsel for the appellant, would cause prejudice to her interest. However, the apprehension expressed is totally pre- mature.
For all, we know the Government may not do any such thing and if at all, any such orders are passed, it would be open to the appellant to avail her remedies in law”, the court observed and dismissed the LPA.
Would love to see our industry become cleaner, respectful of women: Rahman on #MeToo
Woody Allen won’t stop writing despite Hollywood condemnation
‘Pinkathon’ organised to promote health awareness among women
Deepika-Ranveer to get married in November
Harassment stories anger me: Raveena Tandon on #MeToo
© 2017 State Times Daily Newspaper