Holding

Floating Professor is a distinct category of post, and seniority must be determined separately for each category, so the High Court’s order granting seniority to the Floating Professor is upheld.

Summary

Dr. Nitya Nand (appellant) and Dr. P.S. Ghalaut (respondent No.4) were both in the Haryana Medical Education Service and were promoted to Senior Professor on the same date. Respondent No.4 had earlier been appointed as a Floating Professor under Rule 10, while the appellant remained a substantive Associate Professor. The appellant challenged the High Court order that gave seniority to the respondent as Senior Professor, arguing that both were in the same 'teacher' cadre. The Supreme Court examined the service rules and held that Floating Professor is a separate category of post distinct from Associate Professor. Consequently, seniority for each category must be determined separately, and the High Court’s decision was affirmed. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether "Floating Professor" and "Associate Professor" constitute different categories of posts under the Haryana Medical Education Service Rules, 1988.
Whether, on promotion to Senior Professor, a person already appointed as Floating Professor should be given seniority over an associate who was not a Floating Professor, in accordance with Rule 13 of the Rules.

Subjects

seniorityfloating professorassociate professorservice rulespromotionHaryana Medical Education Serviceinter-se senioritycategory of posts

Judgment

[2009] 15 (AOOL.) S.C.R. 915

NITYANANO A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA ANO ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7553 of 2009)
NOVEMBER 13, 2009
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]

Haryana Medical Education Service Rules, 1988:
rule 10 - Floating Professor and Associate Professor are
different categories of posts in Haryana Medical Education
Service. c
rule 10 - Seniority - Claim for- Appellant and (espondent
No. 4 promoted to the post of Senior Professor substantively
on the same day - However, appellant not accorded seniority
over respondent No. 4 as respondent No. 4 was already
selected and appointed as Floating Professor from amongst D
Associate Professors under rule 10 and was drawing higher
pay-scale - Respondent No.4, having been selected as
Floating Professor while the appellant continued as a
substantive Associate Professorprior to their promotion as
Senior Professor, must rank senior to the appellaQt to the post E
of Senior Professor - Service law - Seniority.
The question which has arisen for consideration in the
present appeal is whether "Floating Professor" and
"Associate Professor" are different categories of posts in
Haryana Medical Education Service and, if the answer is
in affirmative then whether High Court is justified in
F
holding that respondent No.4, having been selected as
Floating Professor while the appellant continued as a
substantive Associate Professor prior to their promotion
as Senior Professor, must rank senior to the appellant to
the post of Senior Professor. G
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. It is true that, as per rule 3 of Haryana
Medical Education Service Rules, 1988, Haryana Medical
Education Service comprises of the posts with
915 H
l
\

916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A designation, scales of pay and other allowances as
shown in Appendix A to the Rules. It is also true that in
appendix A, no separate post of" Associate Professor" and
"Floating Professor" are mentioned. However, from the
Rules, it is apparent that "Associate Professor" and
8 "Fl~ating Professor" are different categories of posts in
the service. It is so because as per rule 10 only those
Associate Professors who had been working for the last
10 years can be considered for selection to the post of -l.t:.
"'-
'
Floating Professor. Sub-rule (1) of rule 10 begins with the
expression, "The post of Floating Professor" and provides
C that these posts shall be created to the maximum of five
posts under the scheme as set out in the rule. This gives
an indication that Floating Professor is a different category
·of post in service. As a matter of fact, rule 10 is a special
.provision for appointment as Floating Professor. The
o selection procedure incorporates adjudgment of
suitability for Floating Professorship by the selection ~

committee. Moreover, had Floating Professor been not a !

distinct category, in rule 2(m) that defines "teacher", there
would not have been mention of "Floating Professor". In
so far as rule 9 is concerned, it has no application for
E selection and appointment as Floating Professor. The very
fact that there is a statutory provision with regard fo the
appointment as Floating Professor shows that it is a
separate category of post, more so, once an Associate
Professor is selected and promoted as Floating Professor,
F he comes in a higher pay-scale. [Paras 10 and 11) [923-G-
H; 924-A!G]
1.2. On completion of ten years as Associate
Professor, the candidature of respondent No. 4 for
appointment as Floating Professor was considered; he
G appeared before the selection committee and was found
suitable for Floating Professorship and was in fact
appointed as Floating Professor on July 19, 2006. The
appellant had also completed ten years working as an
Associate Professor but for the reasons best known to
him, he did not choose to appear before the selection t.
H l
....___
r
NITYA NANO v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 917

committee and, consequently, he continued on the A
substantive post of Associate Professor, albeit, he was
working on ad hoc basis as Professor. It is true that on the
same date i.e~ May· 2, 2007, the appellant and respondent
No. 4 were promoted to the post of Senior Professor
substantively but the appellant could not have been
8
accorded seniority over respondent No. 4 as respondent
No. 4 was already selected and appointed as Floating
Professor from amongst Associate Professors under rule
10 and was drawing higher pay-scale. It would be travesty
of justice and rather absurd if respondent No. 4 who had
already been appointed as Floating Professor and was C
drawing higher pay-scale than the appellant before his
substantive promotion fo the post of Senior Professor is
made junior to the appellant who was only holding the
substantive post of Associate Professor (re-designated as
a post of Professor under amended Rules 2007) and was o
in the lower pay-scale on the date of promotion. Moreover,
since the appellant and respondent No. 4 were in different
categories of posts in service as per Rule 13, their seniority
has to be determined separately. [Paras 13 and 14] [925-
8-E]
E
P. S. Ghalaut vs. State of Haryana and Ors. ( 1995) 5 SCC
625, referred to.
Case Law Reference :
(1995) 5 SCC 625 referred to Para 6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. F
7553 of 2009.
I From the Judgment & Order dated 30.4.2008 of the High
"' Court of Punjab & Haryana Judicature at Chandigarh in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 18484 of 2007.
Aman Lekhi, Sandeep Jain, Rakesh Kumar, Jaspreet G
Singh, Rajeev Singh for the Appellants.
Manjit Singh, AAG, Dr. Bali Ram Gupta, Kamal Mohan
Gupta, Suryanarayana Singh, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 15 (AOOL.) S.C.R.

A R.M. LODHA, J. 11. Leave granted.
2. In this appeal by special leave, the judgment of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana passed on April 30, 2008 has been
challenged. By the said judgment, the High Court allowed writ
petition filed by the present respondent No. 4 fixing his seniority
8 over appellant to the post of Senior Professor setting aside the
communication of the Government of Haryana dated November
30, 2007 and consequential office order dated December· 3,
2007 issued by the Director, PGIMS, Rohtak.
3. The question that falls to be determined in this appeal by
C special leave is: whether "Floating Professor'' and "Associate
Professor" are different categories of posts in Haryana Medical
Education Service and, if the answer is in affirmative; is High
Court justified in holding that present respondent No.4, having
been selected as Floating Professor while the appellant
continued as a substantive Associate Professor prior to their
D promotion as Senior Professor, must rank senior to the app,ellant
to the post of Senior Professor.
_ 4. The answer to the aforesaid question, obviously, must be
found with reference to Haryana Medical Education Service
Rules 1988 (amended in 2007) (h~reinafter referred to as 'the
E Rules' ) but before we do that, it will be appropriate that material
and relevant facts are noticed first.
5. Dr. Nitya Nand (Appellant) and Dr. P.S. Ghalaut
(Respondent No. 4) joined Haryana Medical Education Service
as Lecturer in 1981. The appellant is said to have been
F confirmed as Lecturer in the Department of Medicine on July 12,
1984 while respondent No. 4 was confirmed as Lecturer on July
26, 1984. The issue concerning inter-se seniority between
appellant and respondent No. 4 as Lecturer reached thic: Court
in C.A. No. 7608/95, P. S. Ghalaut vs. State of Haryana and
Others, (1995) 5 SCC 625, and this Court vide judgment dated
G August 3, 1995 held that the appellant was senior to respondent
No. 4 as Lecturer. The appellant as well as respondent No. 4 after
they were allowed to cross 1~t efficiency bar and on the fulfillment
of the requisite qualifications and experience were re-
designated as Reader and upon their crossing 2nd efficiency
H
NITYA NANO v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 919
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
bar and fulfilling the qualifications and experience for the post of A
~
Associate Professor, they were re-designated as Associate
Professor. The Appellant was appointed and designated as
Reader with effect fromJune 26, 1986 and Associate Professor
with effect from June 26, 1991 while the respondent No. 4 was
appointed and designated as Reader with effect from
B
September 11, 1986 and Associate Professor with effect from

,. September 11, 1991. In view of the vacant posts obtaining then,
the appellant was promoted as ad hoc Professor on August 6,
1993, while respondent No. 4 was promoted as Professor on
, ad hoc basis on December 23, 1993 but both of them continued
to hold substantive posts of Associate Professor. The c
respondent No. 4, vide order dated July 19, 2006 was selected
as Floating Professor under rule 10 of the Rules. The appellant
as well as respondent No. 4 were promoted as Senior Professor
(erstwhile Professor) substantively with effect from May 2, 2007.
It was clarified that their inter-se seniority shall be decided later D
on. Ultimately, vide communication dated November 30, 2007
....
inter-se seniority of the appellant and respondent No. 4 to the
post of Senior Professor was decided by the Government
whereby the appellant was accorded seniority over respondent
No. 4 and office order came to be issued on December 3, 2007.
6. The present respondent No. 4 challenged the E
communication dated November 30, 2007 and the office order
dated December 3, 2007 before the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana. As noticed above the High Court set aside the
' communication dated November 30, 2007 and office order
" dated December 3, 2007; allowed the writ petition and held that F
respondent No.4 would rank senior to the appellant to the post
of Senior Professor.
7. In rule 2 (I), "Service" means the Haryana Medical
Education Service.
Rule 2 (m) defines "teacher" thus : G
"teacher" means a lecturer, Reader and Associate
~
l( Professor including those when appointed as Floating
Professors under rule 1O."
Rule 3 reads thus :
"The Service shall comprise the posts with designation, H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A scales of pay and other allowances shown in Appendix A
. to these rules;
Provided that nothing in these rules shall affect the
inherent right of the Government to make additions to, or
reduction in the number of such posts or to create new posts
B with different designation or scales of pay either
permanently or temporarily."
Rule 9, to the extent it is relevant, reads thus:
"(1) Recruitment to any post in the Service shall be made
/
.-..-....
as under:--
c (a) .......................................... / I

(b) ..........................................
(c) ························································
(d) ............ ······ ........................ -
(e) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••4
D
(f) in the case of Professors (Medical/Npn- ~
Medical) and Professors (Dental):--
(i) 50% by promotion from amongst t~e teachers,
and
E (ii) 50% by direct recruitment, or by transfer or
deputation of any officer/official already in the
service of an'y State Government or the
Government of India.:
Provided that the first post or vacancy of a ~
F Professor in each Department shall be filled
in by direct recruitment and the second by
promotion and so on.
(g) in the case of Teachers (Me:!;cal/Non-
">-
Medical) and Teachers (Dental):-
G (i) appointment shall be made on the post of
Lecturer only by direct recruitment and if no ,,.
suitable person is available for appointment )'
as Lecturer then by transfer or deputation from
any State Government or Government of India
H or any institution;
NITYA NANO v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 921
[R.M. LODHA, J.]

(ii) a lecturer shall be re-designated as Reader A
if he has been allowed to cross 1st efficiency
bar and fulfils the qualifications and
experience for the post of Reader as laid down
in column 5 of Appendix B;
(iii) a Reader shall be rekdesignated as s
Associate Professor if he has been allowed
to cross the 2nd efficiency bar and fulfils the
qualifications and experience for the post of
Associate Professor as laid down in column
5 of Appendix 8:
c
Provided that the persons holding the posts of
Lecturer or Reader on the commencement of these
rules shall be re-designated as Reader or Associate
Professor as the case may be if he fulfils the
qualifications and experience as laid down in
column 5 of Appendix B and is otherwise suitable D
for re-designation on the basis of record irrespective
of the fact whether he has crossed the 1st or the 2nd
efficiency bar, as the case may be;
2. Appointment by promotion shall be made on the
basis of seniority-cum-merit and seniority alone shall E
not confer any right to such promotion."
Rule 10 makes provision for appointment as Floating
Professors. It reads as follows :
"(1) The posts of Floating Professor under this scheme shall
be created subject to the maximum of 5 posts. F
(2) Only those Associate Professors who are working for
the last 10 years as Associate Professors shall be
considered for the post of Floating Professor.
(3) Promotion to the post of Floating Professor under this
scheme shall mean an upgradation of the post which a G
promotee is holding. Hence the post will remain in abeyance
till the incumbent is adjusted against the permanent post or
retires.
(4) The person shall have to appear before the Selection
Committee constituted for deciding his suitability for H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Floating Professorship.
(5) If the regular post of Professor falls vacant, the Floating
Professor shall be required to compete for the regular post.
(6) On the retirement, adjustment, selection against
permanent post, the post thus falling vacant shall be filled
B in as per procedures laid down above.
(7) As it is an upgradation of the post that a promotee is
holding incumbent shall continue to perform the duties as
heretofore."
Rule 13 provides for inter-se seniority of the members of
c service. It reads thus :-
"Seniority, inter se of members of the Servi.ce, shall be
determined by the length of continuous service on any post
in the service :
Provided that where there are different categories of posts
in the service, the seniority shall be determined sepa_rately
D
for each category :
Provided further that in the case of two or more members
appointed by direct recruitment, the order of merit
determined by the Commission or Selection Committee
shall not be disturbed in fixing the seniority.
E
Provided further that in the case of two or more members
appointed on the same date, the seniority shall be
determined as follows :--
. (a) a member appointed by direct recruitment shall be
senior to a member appointed by promotion or by
F transfer;
(b) a member appointed by promotion shall be senior
to a member appointed by transfer ;
(c) in the case of members appointed by promotion or
by transfer, seniority shall be determined according
G to the seniority of such members in the appointments
from which they were promoted or transferred ; and
(d) in the case of members appointed by transfer from
different cadres, their seniority shall be determined
according to pay, preference being given to a
H
NITYA NANO v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 923
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
member who was drawing a higher rate of pay in his A
previous appointment; and if the rates of pay drawn
are also the same, then by the length of their service
in the appointments, and if the length of such service
is also the same, older member shall .be senior to
the younger member."
B
8. Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned senior counsel for the appellant
submitted that the faculty, as per the Rules, has two cadres viz;
'Teacher' and 'Professor' (now designated as Senior Professor
in the amended Rules, 2007). Section 2(m) defines 'Teacher'
,,..,.> which means Lecturers, Readers, Associate Professor and
Floating Professor (now called Assistant Professor, Associate
c
Professor and Professor) respectively and once cadre seniority
has been fixed, the same cannot be altered and therefore, the
appellant having been held senior to the respondent No. 4 in the
cadre of 'Teacher' and inter-se seniority in the cadre of 'Teacher'
having been settled right upto this Court, the appellant was rightly D
made senior to respondent No. 4 by the Government on their
~ promotion to the post of Senior Professor. He submitted that
High Court seriously erred in holding that respondent No. 4
having been selected as a Floating Professor, he would get
seniority over the appellant when the post held by both of them
E
is the same viz, 'Teacher'. Learned senior counsel would submit
that sub-rule (5) and (7) of rule 1O of the Rules cannot be
disregarded while considering sub-rule (1) of rule 10 since the
selection as Floating Professor keeps the selectee in the cadre
of 'Teacher' as defined in rule 2(m) of the Rules. The learned
.....I, senior counsel strenuously urged that High Court has mis- F
interpreted and mis-construed the Rules.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Bairam Gupta, learned senior
counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 supported the view of
the High Court.
10. It is true that, as per rule 3, Haryana Medical Education G
Service comprises of the posts with designation, scales of pay
and other allowances as shown in Appendix A to the Rules. It is
~

"!' also true that in appendix A, no separate post of "Associate
Professor" and "Floating Professor" are mentioned. However,
from the Rules, it is apparent that "Associate Professor'' and H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A "Floating Professor" are different categories of posts in the
service. It is so because as per rule 10 only those Associate
Professors who had been working for the last 10 years can be
considered for selection to the post of Floating Professor. Sub-
rule (1) of rule 10 begins with the expression, "The post of
Floating Professor" and provides that these posts shall be
8
created to the maximum of five posts under the scheme as set
out in the rule. This gives an indication that Floating Professor
is a different category of post in service. Sub-rule (3) of rule 10
provides that promotion to the post of "Floating Professor" shall
mean an upgradation of the post which a promotee is holding
C and by virtue of Sub-rule (7), the promotee continues to perform
the duties hitherto being done by him. As per sub-rule (4), the
suitability for Floating Professorship is to be decided by a
Selection Committee and a candidate has to appear before such
Committee. Although appointed as a Floating Professor, if the
o regular post of the Professor falls vacant, as per sub-rule (5), he
is required to compete for the regular post.The survey of scheme
contained in rule 10 leaves no manner of doubt that the Rules
do provide for the post of Floating Professor and that it is a
different category of post. As a matter of fact, rule 10 is a special
provision for appointment as Floating Professor. The selection
E procedure incorporates adjudgment of suitability for Floating
Professorship by the selection committee. Moreover, had
Floating Professor been not a distinct category, in rule 2(m) that
defines "Teacher", there would not . have been mention of
"Floating Professors".
F 11 ~In so far as rule 9 is concerned, it has no application for
selection and appointment as Floating Professor. The very fact
that there is a statutory provision with regard to the appointment
as Floating Professor, no doubt is left that it is a separate
category of post, more so, once an Associate Professor is
G selected and promoted as Floating Professor, he comes in a
higher pay-scale. In this view of the matter, we hold, as it must
be, that the Rules provide for appointment as Floating Professor
and it is a separate category of post.
12. Having held that, the question then arises whether High
H Court is justified in its view that the present respondent No. 4
NITYA NANO v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 925
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
having already been appointed as Floating Professor must rank A
senior to the appellant to the post of Senior Professor.
_.I.
J/ 13. On completion of ten years as Associate Professor, as
noticed above, the candidature of respondent No. 4 for
appointment as Floating Professor was considered; h.e
appeared before the selection committee and was found suitable B
for Floating Professorship and was in fact appointed as Floating
Professor on July 19, 2006. The appellant had also completed
•.) ten years working as an Associate Professor but for the reason,s
----"--- '...
best known to him, he did not choose to appear before the
selection committee and, consequently, he continued on the
substantive post of Associate Professor, albeit, he was working c
oh ad hoc basis as Professor. It is true that on the same date
i.e. May 2, 2007, the appellant and respondent No. 4 were
promoted to the post of Senior Professor substantively but for
the reasons indicated above, the appellant could not have been
accorded seniority over respondent No. 4 as respondent No. 4 D
was already selected and appointed as Floating Professor from
amongst Associate Professors under rule 10 and was drawing
-- higher pay-scale. It would be travesty of justice and rather absurd
if respondent No. 4 who had already been appointed as Floating
Professor and was drawing higher pay-scale than the appellant
E
before his substantive promotion to the post of Senior Professort
is made junior to the appellant who was only holding the
substantive post of Associate Professor (re-designated as a
post of Professor under amended Rules 2007) and was in the.
lower pay-scale on the date of promotion.
"~ 14. Moreover, since the appellant and respondent No. 4 F
were in different categories of posts in service as indicated'
above, as per Rule 13, their seniority has to be determined
separately. The High Court in this regard considered the matter
thus:
..
'The post of Floating Professor, though is part of teacher G
under Rule 2(m) of the Rules, but the appointment as ,
Floating Professor is governed and regulated by Rule 10
"' ¥ of the Rules. Sub-Rule (1) contemplates maximum 5 posts
of Floating Professor. Still further, promotion to the post of
Floating Professor means an upgr3dation cf the posts
H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A which a promotee is holding. Hence, the post held by the
Floating Professor is to remain in abeyance till the incumbent
is adjusted against permanent post of the lecturer [refer
Sub-Rule (3)). Still further, the candidate has to appear
before the Selection Committee for deciding his suitability
for Floating Professorship. Thus, Floating Professor is a
B
distinct category of a teacher though part of Service as
teacher. Floating Professor is promoted from amongst
eligible Associate Professors after the Selection Committee
finds him suitable. Rule 13 contemplates that the Seniority
shall be determined by the length of continuous service on
c any post in the Service. It is further explained that where th~re
are different categories of posts in the Service, the seniority
shall be determined separately for each category, therefore,
the post of Floating Professor is a separate category than
that of Associate Professor and as such the seniority of
D Floating Professor has to be determined separately than
that of Associate Professor (since amended to read as
Floating Senior Professor).
No doubt, it is correct that five posts of Floating
Professors have been created out of the cadre of teachers
alone and such Floating Professors carry their posts with
E
them but the number of posts or the nature of promotion is
not relevant for determining the seniority. The seniority has
to be determined in respect of each category of posts in
Service. The petitioner who has been promoted as Floating
Professor in the pay-scale of Rs.16400-21800/- is in
F separate higher category than the Associate Professor (re-
designated as Professor) in the pay-scale of Rs.14300-
18300/-. Both categories of posts are not in the same
category and therefore, not comparable."
15. We find no legal infirmity in the consideration of the
G matter by the High Court. The view of the High Court calls for no
interference.
16. In what we have discussed above, appeal must fail and
is dismissed with no order as to costs. )

D.G. Appeal dismissed.