JUDGMENT
M. Katju, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order of the State Govt. dated 22.4.88 Annexure-19 to the writ petition rejecting the representation of the petitioner and for quashing the adverse entry against the petitioner for the year 1979-80, 1980-81, 1984-85 and directing the respondents to grant efficiency bar to the petitioner from 1.7.82.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner was lecturer in Pharmacology In M. L. N. Medical College, Allahabad. In paras 6 and 7 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the petitioner was senior to one Dr. A. K. Kapoor respondent No. 5 in this writ petition. In para 11 of the writ petition, it is stated that adverse entries were given to the petitioner because that he had not completed any paper and published them in those years and he was not taking any interest in research work. The Director Medical. Education, U. P. communicated these entries to the petitioner, by letter dated 21.2.84 Annexure-3 to the writ petition.
4. The petitioner has alleged in para 8 of the writ petition that he has done research work details of which have been given in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In para 9 of the writ petition, it is alleged that his research work was widely acclaimed not only in Tndia but even in various foreign countries. The petitioner received letters from eminent professors and medical institutions for re-print of the petitioner’s papers. It was demanded from about 20 countries. Three of the letters of request in this connection are Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
5. In para 10 of the writ petition, it is alleged that neither in the letter of the petitioner’s appointment nor in any rule or G. O. or departmental instructions, the State or the Medical College stipulated any service condition requiring a lecturer in the Medical College to do research work for getting papers published, every year. Despite this, the petitioner did research work because of his academic interest and got about 40 papers published in various medical journals. The petitioner has alleged that even Dr. Hargovind Khurana, an eminent scientist, who got the Nobel Prize completed a single research work in about 12 years. In para 11 of the petition, it is alleged that there is no requirement in law that research work should be done by a lecturer and that it should be completed and published every year. In para 13 of the petition, it is alleged that only the
petitioner has been picked out for making an entry regarding the research work. No other lecturer has been given adverse entry in this manner.
6. The petitioner made representations against this adverse entry true copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. On this representation, the Head of the Department Dr. S. K. Bapat wrote a letter to the Principal dated 29.2.84 vide Annexure-6 to the petition stating that he agreed with the points expressed in the representation of the petitioner, and he strongly recommended the expunging of the adverse entries for both the years. However, the Director of Medical Education, Dr. S. S. MIsra sent a letter to the Principal for his comments. True copy of the letter of the Director dated 30.7.84 is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. In para 19 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner completed one research paper as stated in the adverse entry of 1980-81 yet the Principal mentioned that petitioner has no Interest In research work. On the other hand, the Head of the Department has given an annual confidential report of the petitioner for the year 1979-80, copy of which is Annexure-9 to the petition. In this entry, he has made a very favourable report about the petitioner’s good work. He has also mentioned that the petitioner has keen interest in research work. The Petitioner has alleged that Dr. S. S. Misra was hostile to him and he has got the adverse entry made. Details of the petitioner’s enmity with Dr. S. S. Misra are mentioned in the writ petition from paras 22 to 34. In para 36 of the writ petition, It is stated that Dr. S. S. MIsra illegally and arbitrarily recommended to the State Government that the petitioner be permitted to cross efficiency bar from 1984 and not 1982 when it was due. The petitioner made a representation against this but no reply was given, However, as stated in para 36 of the writ petition, the Director intimated the petitioner by letter dated 11.11.87 that the efficiency bar had been with held for two years on account of
the entries of 1979-80 and 1980-81. In para 37 of the writ petition, it is alleged that in years 1985. 1986 and 1987, the Departmental Promotion Committee had met and considered the question of promotion to the post of Reader in State Medical Colleges. Dr. S. S. Misra who was the Director participated as member of the Committee although in view of the enmity between him and petitioner. Dr. Misra should not have participated. in para 38 of the petition, it is stated that Dr. Misra not only sat in the D.P.C. but also was influential in seeing that the petitioner was not selected.
7. In para 8 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that publication of research work is also considered as an important criterion when a lecturer/reader has to cross the efficiency bar, and such research work is included under Head of preferential qualifications when the posts of lecturer/reader/professors in State Medical Colleges are advertised by the U. P. Public Service Commission. It is alleged that in the academic years 1979-80 and 1980-81 the petitioner neither published any research work nor took interest in that field, as such adverse entry was awarded to him in those years. He made a representation against said entry but the same was rejected.
8. In our opinion, the impugned adverse entries should not have been given against the petitioner and they were wholly arbitrary. The adverse entries against the petitioner smack of mala fides and bias against the petitioner.
9. We have not seen any rule or regulation stating that a lecturer requires to do research work. Of course, if a lecturer also does research work that would be an additional qualification for considering him for promotion. But that is not his main Job. The main job of a lecturer is to teach. Hence even assuming that the petitioner did not do research work, this could at most affect his chances of promotion, but adverse entry should not have been given to him and the petitioner cannot be stopped from crossing
efficiency bar on this account. If the petitioner was doing teaching work properly and attending to his duties, no adverse entry can be given merely because he has not done research work. There is no complaint against the petitioner regarding his teaching work. Also, his Integrity was certified by Dr. Bapat who being the Head of the petitioner’s Department was in the best position to know. Dr. Bapat has also praised the petitioner’s work highly.
10. A lecturer’s work is basically teaching work and there is no requirement that he must be in addition do research work. Hence, in our opinion, the impugned adverse entries are wholly arbitrary and Illegal and are quashed. The order of the State Government dated 22.4.88 is also quashed and we direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to cross the efficiency bar from 1.7.82.
11. The Petition is allowed. No orders as to costs.