Is Experience As Additional Professor Same As Professor? Allahabad HC Sheds Light On Medical College Recruitment Rules
The Allahabad High Court held that a candidate with experience as both Additional Professor and Professor should be taken into consideration for the position of Principal (Allopathy) in the Department of Medical Education.
The Court assessed whether the experience as an Additional Professor in a Medical College would also count as the experience of a Professor, which a candidate is required to possess to become Principal of a Medical College under the relevant Rules.
A Single Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar observed that “Here is not the case that the petitioner did not possess the required qualification but the case is as to the interpretation of the qualification that the petitioner did possess, whether to fall within the qualification prescribed for or not. Since highest body, the Medical Council of India and National Medical Commission interpreted that the Professor includes an Additional Professor, I see no justification to hold that the petitioner did not possess requisite qualification of experience as Professor.”
Senior Advocate Ashok Khare represented the petitioner while C.S.C. Sanjay Kumar Om appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner’s selection for the said post was cancelled by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (the Commission) on the ground that he did not possess the requisite experience under the relevant Recruitment Rules.
The petitioner had an experience of 8 years as an Additional Professor and Professor together.
The Commission advertised the position for the said post and the essential qualifications included an MD/MS or an equivalent qualification recognised by the Medical Council of India (MCI) and atleast 10 years teaching experience, with at least five years as a Professor in a Department of a recognised Medical College/Institution.
The petitioner was provisionally selected, but another candidate filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the provisional selection of the petitioner and sought a mandamus requesting consideration and recommendation for appointment.
The State Government had clarified that since the qualifications for the posts of Professor and Additional Professor are the same, the teaching experience of both positions should be considered as that of a Professor.
The respondents did not dispute the petitioner's possession of eight years of teaching experience at the postgraduate level or experience as an Associate Professor. The only contention was that the specific five years of experience as a Professor should not include his experience as an Additional Professor. This argument was not accepted by the Court.
The Court held that the petitioner possessed the required qualification observing that both the MCI and the National Medical Commission (NMC) have interpreted that the position of Professor includes that of an Additional Professor. Therefore, the Court had no reason to hold that the petitioner lacked the necessary qualification of experience as a Professor.
The Court found no illegality in the selection and appointment of the petitioner as Professor pursuant to the advertisement in question.
Subsequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition filed by the other candidate.
Cause Title: Dr. Sheo Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2023:AHC:243201)
Click here to read/download the Judgment