GMCH’s time-bound promotion scheme under judicial scanner

Source:-https://www.tribuneindia.com

The time-bound promotion scheme of the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, has come under the judicial scanner less than one month after it was implemented, with the Punjab and Haryana High Court issuing a notice on a plea seeking its quashing.

Among other things, Dr Roosy Aulakh has contended that it was being implemented “retrospectively and super confidentially”. Appearing before the Bench in person, the Associate Professor has also sought the quashing of a consequential order dated November 9 on the ground that it granted “second step re-designation” to 14 junior faculty members even though it had already been stayed by the High Court thrice vide orders dated August 30, 2018, February 5, 2019, and July 17, 2019.

Dr Aulakh added the same had also been stayed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated June 20, 2018. The Bench was also told that the move was in breach of an undertaking by the GMCH and other official respondents in response to a contempt notice on her plea.

She also contended that the impugned scheme implemented vide notification dated October 29 was, inter alia, ultra vires to the statutory recruitment rules of the respondent-institute as it amounted to reverting UPSC’s selection based inter-se-seniority of the petitioner by granting retrospective experience to the 14 members in absence of vacancies. It was also against well-settled legal prepositions based on multiple High Court and Apex Court judgements.

Going into the background of the matter, Dr Aulakh contended that the 14 junior faculty members moved the CAT in February 2015, claiming time-bound second-step re-designation from re-designated Associate Professor to re-designated Professor.

Dr Aulakh added an affidavit dated October 26, 2016, filed by the institute’s Director-Principal stated it was dehors the Career Advancement Scheme. Thereafter, the plea was withdrawn. They again moved the CAT in August 2017 for the same claim. In the ensuing rounds of litigation, stay was granted. The official and other respondents were seeking vacation of the stay order, while it was being “vehemently contested” by the petitioner.

Dr Aulakh added the impugned orders under the time-bound re-designation scheme granted the same benefit to same 14 respondents over and above the petitioner even though she approached the courts in time and was granted timely relief.

Dr Aulakh’s case was that the move was in blatant violation of stay granted in the same matter by three senior Division Benches of the High Court and an attempt to hoodwink the stay orders by changing nomenclature of the challenged scheme while retaining its content and intent.