Ensure promotions as per norms, PGI told

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 17

Taking a note of the PGI’s admission that teaching posts were not filled through promotions, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has impressed upon its governing body to ensure the same were made in accordance with the regulations. Setting a three-week deadline for the purpose, a Division Bench of the High Court made it clear that the direction was for improving efficiency in the teaching faculties.

The developments took place during the hearing of a petition filed against the Central Administrative Tribunal and other respondents by Dr Virendra Singh through senior advocate Puneet Bali, Rubai J Singh and Vibhav Jain.

Fixing the case for further consideration in the second week of January, the Bench of Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu asserted that appointment/placement through the Assessment Promotion Scheme (APS) was “almost as a matter of right”. The suitability of only one candidate was required to be seen under the scheme. The merit in relation to other candidates was not determined.

In sequel to the directions issued by the Bench on the previous date of hearing, PGI Deputy Director (Administration) Amitab Awasthi “fairly admitted” during a long interaction with the court that the posts were not filled up by way of promotions. 

The Bench added that the teachers were to be appointed by way of direct recruitment and promotion, according to the regulations. Promotion was to be made on the basis of criteria to be adopted in accordance with law. The candidate must be eligible, qualified and fulfilling the qualifying service to be considered for promotion. His suitability was adjudged by the duly constituted committee. There was an element of merit while making promotions.

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Sharma asserted that Awasthi did not dispute that the teaching faculty was to be appointed in accordance with the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, Regulations, by way of direct recruitment; promotion; and appointment/placement as per the APS to remove stagnation.

The seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees was also governed under a regulation. Since the APS had come later in time, the governing body had taken a conscious decision to regulate the seniority of all three categories. However, the decision had not been notified/published till date.

Justice Sharma added that Awasthi “fairly submitted” that a reference had already been made to the governing body to notify/publish the decision in order to determine the seniority of all three categories of the teaching faculty.