Holding

The petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed as Professor of Radiological Physics effective 1 May 1995, and the decision to downgrade the post shall remain in abeyance until his superannuation; the order is limited to the facts of the case and does not set a precedent.

Summary

J. Rangaswamy, holding a diploma in Radiological Physics from BARC, was serving in a special ad‑hoc post with pay higher than that of a professor and sought to be recognized as Professor of Radiological Physics, arguing that his diploma was an adequate qualification in lieu of a Ph.D. He filed a writ petition, a civil appeal and later a contempt petition alleging the Andhra Pradesh Government’s failure to act on the Court’s earlier directions to review the qualification requirements. The Court found that the Government had not properly considered the petitioner’s representation and had unduly delayed implementation, even downgrading the post to lecturer. Consequently, the Court ordered that the downgrading be kept in abeyance until the petitioner’s superannuation and that he be deemed appointed as Professor effective 1 May 1995, with the post to be downgraded only after his retirement. The order was declared specific to the facts of the case and not a precedent, and the contempt petition was disposed of without costs.

Issues considered

Whether a diploma in Radiological Physics is an adequate qualification for the post of Professor of Radiological Physics under the applicable service rules.
Whether the State Government’s failure to implement the Court’s directions amounts to contempt of court.
Whether the Court can deem the petitioner appointed as Professor notwithstanding the statutory qualification requirement of a Ph.D.
Whether the order issued in the case creates a binding precedent.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

service lawqualification requirementprofessor appointmentradiological physicsdiploma vs Ph.D.contempt of courtSupreme CourtArticle 32Andhra Pradesh

Judgment

A J. RANGASWAMY
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

•APRIL 28, 1995

B [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.]

Service Law : Diploma holder from Bhabha Atomic Research \
Centre-Already working in Special Ad hoc post with pay scale higher than
that of professor-Plea that the diploma be regarded as adequate qualification
c for the post of professor-State directed to consider the plea--State without
considering the question downgraded the post to that lecturer-Held: He has
to be treated to be posted as professor-Decision of downgrading the post to
be kept in abeyance till his superannuation-Rules not to be amended or
modified since order passed in particular facts and circumstances of the case.

D The petitioner filed a Writ Petition and Civil Appeal before this T
Court with the plea that for efficient discharge of the duties of the post of
professor of Radiological Physics, the diploma in Radiological Physics
from Bhabba Atomic Research Centre (BARC) held by him is more
relevant than a doctrate in Nuclear physics.
E
This court permitted the petitioner to move the appropriate
authorities for a review of the prescribed qualification and directed that if
the doctrate in Nuclear Physics was made out to be irrelevant for the post,
the authorities concerned should take expeditions steps to revise necessary
qualifications.
'-
F
Pursuant to the direction of. the court, the petitioner filed repre-
sentation before the Government of Andbra Pradesh to amend the rules
governing the post of professor of Radiological Physics in order to treat
the qualification held by him as sufficient for the post.
G Petitioner filed I.A. with the plea that inspite of his representation
have been examined by an enqniry commission appointed by the govern-
ment which bad snbmitted its report in this favour, the government was
·-
not taking any steps to consider the report and revise the rules.

H The court directed the Government of Andhra Pradesh to examine
874
'
J. RANGASWAMYv. STATE OF AP. 875

the report of the enquiry commission and take appropriate decision at the A
earliest.

Despite the direction of the court, Government not having taken any
steps, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition. The counter affidavit filed
was without any indication with regard to any definite step taken by the
Government. The counter stated that separate Departmental Rules were B
framed, governing the service of Department of Medical Education which
were under consideration.

The Court granted time to the State Government for taking all
necessary steps and extend all benefits to the petitioner.
c
On the next date of hearing the Government stated to have complied
with all the orders of the court and in support of which a copy of G.O. Ms.
No. 176 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (Ml) Department dated
13.4.1995 was filed which stated that since no one qualified for the post
and the post is not mandatory according to the guidelines of the Medical D
Council of India, the post is down-graded to the post of lecturer.

A copy of the observation of the Screening Committee was also filed
which said that the post existed only in the college of the petitioner, which
was created in order to accommodate a particular candidate and that,
under normal university rules lecturer does not straightaway become E
professor and at the relevant time none of the available persons was fit to
be promoted.

A letter dated 13.4.1995 from Secretary to Government, Health,
--) Medical and Family Welfare Department Government of A.P. to the Advo-
cate-on-Record was also produced. F

Disposing of the contempt petition, the Court

HELD : 1.1. The material placed before the Court does not indicate
that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has ever considered properly the G
petitioner's representation - and in particular the question, whether
diploma held by the petitioner is adequate qualification for the post of
professor of Radiological 'Physics. The "Observation of the Screening Com-
mittee" contains no reference to this aspect nor does G.O.Ms. No.176 dated
April 13, 1995. Only in the letter dated April 13, 1995, one sentence occurs
that "the rules governing the said post have been examined vis-a-vis the H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A recommendation of One Man Commission/The Director of Medical Ednca·
tion and also the guidelines prescribed by the Medical Council of India and
it is felt that Ph.D in Physics or Nuclear Physics is essential for a profes·
sor". No material has, however, been produced to substantiate the said
statement. (881-D to F]

B 1.2. The fact of the case show that the Government bas been dragging
its feet in the matter. Petitioner has meanwhile, been placed in a post equal
to or higher than the post of Professor of Radiological Physics. Accordingly,
the decision to down grade the said post of Professor of Radiological
Physics shall be kept in abeyance till the superannuation of the petitioner. '
C The petitioner shall be treated as having been appointed regularly to the
post of Professor of Radiological Physics in the Andhra Medical College,
Vlshakhapatnam with effect from 1st May, 1995. The sa,ld p~st shall stand
down graded to the post of lecturer. (881-G, H, 882-A)

1.3 These orders are passed in particular facts and circumstances of
D the case and shall not be treated as a precedent nor would it be necessary
to amend or modify the mies for this purpose. (882-A]

1.4. If the petitioner is at present drawing emoluments higher than
those admissible to the post of professor, the same shall not be withdrawn.
(882-B)
E CML ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition No. 211 of
1994.

IN

Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 1992. \ .
F
lN
Writ Petition (c) No. 4619 of 1985.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
G
Petitioner in-person.

G. Prabhakar, T.V.S. N. Chari and Nikhil Nayar for Andhra Pradesh
Service Commission for Respondents.

H The following Order of the Court was delivered :
J. RANGASWAMYv. STATE OF AP. 877
In their Order dated 20th December, 1989, a Bench of this Court A
comprising S. Ranganathan and M.M. Punchhi, JJ. gave the following
direction in Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 1989 (in Writ Petition (C)
No. 4619 of 1985 in Review Petition No. 177 of 1989) and Interlocutory
Application No. 2 of 1989 (in Civil Appeal No. 4344 of 1986)·:

B
"The plea of the petitioner is that, for efficient discharge of the_
duties of the post in question, the diploma and radiological physics
(as applied in Medicines) from the Bhabha Atomic Research
Centre (BARC) held by him is more relevant than a doctorate in
nuclear physics. It is submitted that in all corresponding posts
elsewhere, a diploma in radiological physics is insisted upon and C
that, even in the State of Andhra Pradesh, all other physicists
working in the line, except the respondent, have the diploma of
the BARC. It is not for the Court to consider the relevance of
qualifications prescribed for various posts. The post in question is
that of a professor and the prescription of a doctorate as a D
necessary qualification therefore is nothing unusual. Petitioner
also stated before us that, to the best of his knowledge, there is no
doctorate course anywhere in India in radiological physics. That
is perhaps why a doctorate in nuclear physics has been prescribed.
There is nothingprima fade preposterous about this requirement.
It is not for us to assess the comparative merits of such a doctorate E
and the BARC diploma held by the petitioner and decide or direct
what sho~ld be the qualifications to be prescribed for the post in
question. It will be open to the petitioner, if so advised, to move
the college, university, Government, Indian Medical Council or
other appropriate authorities for a review of the prescribed F
qualifications and we hope that, if a doctrate in nuclear is so
absolutely irrelevant for the post in question as is sought to be
made out by the petitioner, the authorities concerned will take
expeditious steps to revise the necessary qualifications needed for
the post appropriately. But, on the qualifications as they stand
to-day, the petitioner is not eligible to the post and cannot G
legitirnatc!y complain against his non-selection."

Pursuant to the said observations, the petitioner-J. Rangaswarny filed
a representation before the Government of Andhra Pradesh to amend the
Rules governing the post Professor of Radiological Physics so as to treat H

•.
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A the qualification held by him (a diploma awarded by Bhabha Atomic
Research Centre) as sufficient qualification for holding the said post. r'
Complaining that the Government of Andhra Pradesh is talcing no action
upon his representation, the petitioner moved I.A. No. 1 which came up
before a Bench comprising S Ranganathari, V. Ramaswami, JJ. and one of
B us (B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.) on October 16, 1992 when the following order
was passed:

"On 20.12.89 this court permitted the petitioner to apply to the
appropriate authority for a revision of the rules of recruitment to
the post of Professor of Radiologist Physics with the hope that the
c authorities concerned will take expeditious steps to revise the
necessary qualifications appropriately. The petitioner's grievance
is that though he made a representation which was examined by
an Enquiry Comniission appointed by the Govt. and though the
Enquiry Commission submitted its report on 12.3.92, according to
the petitioner in his favour, the Govt. has not yet taken steps to
D consider the report, take decision thereon and reviSe the rules as
they may consider appropriate. There is some substance in this
grievance for almost 3 years have passed when we passed the above
order. In the circumstances we hope that the Govt. of Andhra
Pradesh will examine the enquiry commission report and take
E appropriate decision at the earliest if possible by the end of this
year.

This application has been misguidedly styled as Contempt
Petition. It is only for directions. So his petition is disposed of. " ,,
F
The petitioner has approached with the present contempt petition
·against complaining that inspite of the later direction, the respondents are
not taking any action in the matter. We issued notice to the respondents,
who appeared and filed an affidavit (affirmed and signed on 6th February,
1995) sworn-to by Sri K.R. Narayanan, Deputy Secretary to the Govern-
G ment, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Government of
Andhra Pradesh, which merely referred to the movement of the concerned
file from office to office but did not indicate that any definite steps were 1-
taken by the Government towards implementing the orders of this Court.
The counter-affidavit requested for grant of three months; time for passing
H final orders in the matter. It stated further : "(I)t is submitted that the

.•
'
J.RANGASWAMYv.STATEOFAP. 879

separate Departmental Rules governing the services of Department of A

' Medical Education are prepared _ana the same are under consideration
and some time is required for issuing final orders and Notification."

Finding that the said affidavit is evasive and that the complainant's
grievance cannot be said to be unjustified, we passed the following order
on February 20, 1995: B

"The counter-affidavit filed by the State Government makes a sad
reading. It is evident that the State Government has been sleeping
)
over the matter and has not been prompt enough, as it ought to
be, in implementing the orders of this Court. In the circumstances
we direct that within six weeks from today the State Government
c
should take all necessary steps and extend all benefits which are
due to the petitioner in accordance with the orders of this Court,
without fail. If this is not done within the period so prescribed, the
officers concerned shall personally be liable to explain the non-
compliance. D
List on 17th April, 1995".

When matter came up on April 17, 1995, the learned counsel for the
State of Andhra Pradesh stated that the government has complied with the
orders of this Court. In support of the said plea, he placed before a copy E
of the letter No. 2213/Ml/94-6 dated April 13, 1995 from the Secretary to
the Government, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department,
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, addressed to the Advocate-
On- Record. The letter states the following facts: the representation of the
~;
petitioner was placed before the Screening Committee which found that F
the none of the lecturers have requisite qualification of Ph.D. for inclusion
in the panel for the post of Professor of Radiological Physics/Chief Physics
in the Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam : "I am further to inform
that rules governing the post of professor of Radiological physics have been
examined vis-a-vis the recommendations of the One Man Commission/the
Director of Medical Education and also the guidelines prescribed by the G
Medical Council of India and it is felt that a Ph.D. in Physics or Nuclear
-~ Physics is essential for a Professor"; as per the guidelines prescribed by the
Medical Council of India, it is not necessary to have a post of professor of
Radiological Physics in any Medical College, that i11 other medical colleges
in State no such post of professor exists; the Government has, therefore, H

..
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995'] 3 S.C.R.

A decided to down-grade the said post to that of the post of Lecturer to
ensure uniform pattern in all Medical Colleges. f
Alongwith the aforesaid letter, a copy of G.O.Ms. No. 176 Health,
Medical and Family Welfare (MI) Department dated April 13, 1995 is
enclosed. The G.O. says that inasmuch as there is no qualified candidate
B to fill up the said post of professor and also because it is not mandatory
to have such a post according to Medical Couocil of India guidelines, the
said post. is down-graded to the post of Lecturer with immediate effect.
Another document enclosed to the said letter is a copy of the "Observations
of the Screening Committee which met on 18.3.1995 in connection which '
c preparation of Panel for filling up the post of Professor of Radiological
Physics/Chief Physicist in Andhra Medical College Visakhapatnam". This
note sets out the three orders of this Court aforementioned and says,
"(T)he Screening Committee was informed that it is not mandatory as per
Medical Couocil of India's guidelines to have a post of professor of
Radiological Physics for any Medical College; that only in the Andhra
D Medical College, Visakhapatnam, a post had been created sometime ago
apparently to accommodate one particular candidate, who was serving as
Lecturer at that time; ...... that under the normal University pattern, a
Lecturer does not straightaway become a Professor and an intermediate
level of eight a Reader or Asst. Professor is normally available instead of
E a straight jump from lecturer to Professor ......" . The Screening Committee
asked the Government to decide whether the post of Professor should be
continued in the Medical College at Visakhapatnam and if it is decided to
continue, whether to revise the existing Rules inasmuch as at present none
of the available persons is fit to be promoted. At the same time, it added,
"it is not desirable to amend rules merely to suit an individual or to enable \
F
the promotion of an individual."

From the material placed before us, it appears that by proceedings
of the Director of Medical Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad dated December 18, 1992, the petitioner was appointed to the
G "Special promotion post" with effect from February 26, 1983 and allowed
to draw the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2000 in the pre-revised scale of pay
of 1986 attached to the promotional post of Professor of Radiological '.
Physics in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 117-Fin. & Pig. (FW) Dept. dated May
25, 1981. The said proceedings says further that "(A)fter fixing the pay in
H special promotional post, in the above scale, Sri J. Ranagaswamy, lecturer
J. RANGASWAMYv. STATE OF A.P. 881
in Radiological Physics/Radiological Physicist, on completion of (22) years A
of service in the present category on 25.2.90, is appointed to specialAd-hoc
promotion post scale-II w.e.f. 26.2.90, in the scale of pay of Rs. 2590-
100-3090-110-4300 (in 1986 RPS) next above the scale of pay of the post
of professor in Radiological Physics, Rs. 2410-90-2950- 100-4080, (in 1986
RPS), in term of G.O. (P) No. 2-Fin. & Pig. (Fin.Wing) dt. 14.1.88." From B
these proceedings, it is clear that with effect from February 25, 1983 the
petitioner has been placed in a special promotion post carrying the pre-
revised pay scale of the Professor of Radiological Physics and that with
effect from February 26,-1990 he has been placed in a scale above the scale
of pay of the post of Professor of Radiological Physics. Petitioners, how,
ever, says that he is entitled to be promoted to the post of Professor with C
effect from February 26, 1973 (vide his representation dated May 10, 1991
- Annexure 'C' to the contempt petition). In view of the orders of this Court
dated December 20, 1989, however, it is not possible to accede to the said
request. At the same time, we must say that the material placed before us
does not indicate that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has ever con- D
sidered properly the petitioner's representation - and in particular the
question, whether the diploma held by the petitioner is adequate qualifica-
tion for the post of Professor of Radiological Physics. The "Observation of
the Screening Committee" contains no reference to this aspect nor does
G.O.Ms No. 176 dated April 13, 1995. Only in the letter dated April 13, E
1995 referred to above (from the Secretary to the Government addressed
to the Advocate-on-Record for Andhra Pradesh in Supreme Court) one
sentence occurs that "the rules governing the said post have been examined
vis-a-vis the recommendation of the One Man Commission/the Director of
F
.. )
the Medical Education and also the guidelines prescribed by the Medical
Council of India and it is felt that a Ph.D. in Physics or Nuclear Physics is
essential for a Professor." No material has, however, been produced to
substantiate the said statement. The facts of this case show that the
Government has been dragging its feet in the matter. Of course, the
petitioner has meanwhile been placed in a post equal to or higher than the
post of Professor of Radiological Physics. In the circumstances, all that G
remains is to nlake suitable orders in the matter. Accordingly, we direct
that the decision to down-grade the said post of Professor of Radiological
Physics shall be kept in abeyance till the superannuation of the petitioner.
The petitioner shall be treated as having be.en appointed regularly to the
post of Professor of Radiological Physics in the Andhra Medical College, H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A Visakhapatnam, with effect from 1st May, 1995. On the date the petitioner
retires, the said post shall stand down-graded to the post of Lecturer. f .
These orders are passed in the particular facts and circumstances of the
case and shall not be treated as a precedent nor would it be necessary to
amend or modify the rules for this purpose. It is, however, made clear that
B if the petitioner is at present drawing emoluments higher than those ad-
missible to the post of Professor (to which he shall be treated to have been
appointed with effect from May 1, 1995), the same shall not be withdrawn.

The Contempt Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to
costs.
c D.K.T Petition disposed of.

'.

1 -