ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction upon the authorities of the respondent Ranchi Institute of Neuro Psychiatry and Allied Sciences (in short RINPAS) to promote her on the post of Associate Professor (Clinical Psychology) with effect from 1.9.2003 and further for quashing the order as contained in letter No. 1535 dated 5.6.2004 and the decision of the Managing Committee of RINPAS declaring the petitioner ineligible for promotion to the said post.
2. Petitioner was appointed and joined as Junior Clinical Psychologist (Teaching Post) in the RINPAS. After joining, she did her Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology in February 2000. In June 2000, respondents issued advertisement in the Newspaper inviting application for direct recruitment of Teachers. However, no appointments were made on the basis of the said advertisement and the respondent decided to fill up the vacant posts through promotion. In 2003, the Managing Committee of RINPAS took up the matter of promotion of faculty members in its 25th meeting dated 28.7.2003 and constituted a Sub-Committee for examining and deciding the matter for promotion of faculty members. The Sub-Committee after examining the cases of the candidates did not find the petitioner suitable for promotion for the present, since she did not have requisite Post Doctoral Experience. The said decision of the Sub-Committee was finally approved by the Managing Committee in its 26th meeting.
3. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned decision of the Committee as being illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. Learned counsel submitted that two Assistant Professors in Clinical Psychology i.e. the petitioner and one Dr. Lok Mani Sahu joined the post in 1997 and both of them belong to the general category. Learned counsel submitted that although two posts of associate Professor in general category were lying vacant but Dr. Sahu has only been promoted to the said post. Petitioner who was having requisite qualification has not been given promotion. According to the learned counsel, the cases of the petitioner and Dr. Lok Mani Sahu are same and similar as both of them have experience as Assistant Professor since 1998. Learned counsel submitted that Dr. Sahu has been promoted on the post of Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology with effect from 1.9.2003 on which date petitioner was having requisite qualification.
4. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Advocate General on the other hand submitted that cases of the petitioner and Dr. Lok Mani Sahu are not exactly the same and similar, inasmuch as Mr. Sahu did his M. Phil in the year 1990 and Ph.D. in the month of December, 1998, whereas the petitioner did her M. Phil in 1996 and Ph.D. in February, 2000. Learned counsel submitted that Dr. Sahu completed his Post Doctoral Experience in December, 2003 and so far petitioner is concerned, she has completed her Doctoral Experience of five years in February 2005.
5. Learned Advocate General lastly submitted that respondent/RINPAS has adopted the Rules of NIMHANS, Bangalore, a Premier Mental Health Institute, whereby more strict norms of six years of Post Doctoral Experience for being promoted to the post of Associate Professor is required and therefore case of the petitioner shall be considered for promotion in February 2005 when she will complete six years of experience.
6. Prima facie, there is a difference between the petitioner and Dr. Lok Mani Sahu so far as the dates they obtained requisite qualification are concerned. For better appreciation paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent is reproduced herein below :
“”That the case of the petitioner and Mr. L.M. Sahu is not exactly the same and similar, as claimed by the petitioner, as Mr. L.M. Sahu, M.A., Psychology and done M.Phil in the year 1990, his date of joining is 4.8.1997 and after joining of Mr. L.M. Sahu, he done his Ph.D. in the month of December, 1998 and present qualification in five years of Ph.D. Post Doctoral Experience and the same has been completed as on December 2003, so far as the petitioner is concerned, petitioner is M.A. (Psychology) and done her M.Phil in the year 1996 and her date of joining is 1.9.1997 i.e. approximately after one months as compare to Mr. L.M. Sahu. Moreover, the petitioner has done her Ph. D. in February, 2000 and her five years post Ph. D. Experience will complete in February 2005 and hence under no circumstances the petitioner can say that the case of the petitioner and Mr. L.M. Sahu rest on the similar footing as per Medical Council of India Norms. For easy reference to this Hon’ble Court as chart has been referred below :
(1) Mr. L.M. Sahu, After joining
M.A. (Psychology) M. Ph.D. (Dec.
Phil) 1990), Date of 1998, 5 years
Joining : 04.8.1997 post Ph. D. Ex-
perience in
December 2003
(2) Miss Masroor Jahan Ph. D. (Feb.
M.A. (Psychology), M. 2000), 5 years
Phil (1996) post Ph. D. Ex-
perience will be
completed in
Feb.2005
Date of Joining 1.9.1997
7. So far the norms provided by the Medical Council of India is concerned, it relates to the Medical Teachers. However, for the purpose of promotion i.e. for Associate Professor one must possess five years’ experience as Assistant Professor. Although in the Medical Council of India norms, thee is no mention of Ph. D. qualification for the post of Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology, I am of the views that Ph.D. qualification should be the criteria for promotion to the post of Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology as provided in other Premier Mental Institutes. Undisputedly, Dr. Sahu has completed his five years’ Doctoral Experience in 2003 whereas the petitioner has completed her Doctoral Experience in February, 2005. In my view, Dr. Sahu has rightly been promoted to the post of associate Professor with effect from the date when he completed five years’ of Doctoral Experience. However, the same criteria should be adopted and followed in case of the petitioner also. Since the petitioner has completed her five years’ of Doctoral Experience in February 2005, the Managing Committee of the respondent should consider her case also for promotion to the post of Associate Professor.
8. I, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Managing Committee of the respondent/RINPAS to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Associate Professor against the existing vacancy and take a final decision within a period of two months from the date receipt/production of a copy of this order. Petition disposed of.