SC Provides Relief to 2 Doctors, Restores Assistant Professor Posts

To explain the nature of bond regarding an employer sponsoring an employee's higher education, the Supreme Court bench referred to the notification blocking two positions of Assistant Professors for the appellants and observed, "It makes clear that the two candidates would be sponsored for two-year diploma in their specialty, and subsequent to the completion of which, they would serve the institution for seven years in accordance with the necessary bond/agreement, which will have to be executed. A bond or agreement of this nature is formed when the employer financially supports the educational advancement of one of its employees, who is then expected to return and contribute to the employer's growth with the newly acquired experience and knowledge for a specific period."

"The condition is that if such an employee fails to do so, the bond they have executed, which may be for a specified amount of money, shall be forfeited, or the amount paid by the employer in sponsoring such education shall have to be returned," the bench further added.

Also Read: Bond service or Bonded Labour? Supreme Court slams States Mandatory Remote Service bond policies

The issue dates back to 31st December, 2004, when the authorities of the State issued an advertisement to fill positions of Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors at the Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura, Srinagar. The appellants applied for the position of Assistant Professors. However, they were deemed ineligible. Following this, the Apical Selection Committee recommended appointing these two appellants as Senior Residents in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, as well as their sponsorship for a two-year diploma in the speciality.

Even though the appellants were appointed to such positions as Senior Residents, due to certain difficulties, the two-year diploma could not fructify. Consequently, the appellants undertook the short-term training program at AIIMS Delhi. After this, a fresh advertisement for recruitment was issued for the vacancies that remained unfilled. The record revealed that SKIMS (Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences) acknowledged that the efforts made to secure positions in a two-year diploma course for the appellants had not yielded results. Further, it was stated that since they had completed the training offered in Delhi, they could be considered for the position of Assistant Professor.

Consequently, back in the year 2010, a notification was issued appointing the instant appeals as Assistant Professors in the said department. On November 3, 2010, they were relieved of their duties as senior residents. Following this, Public Interest Litigation was filed under Section 103 of the J&K Constitution before the High Court, seeking to set aside/cancel the appointment of these appellants as Assistant Professors. When the High Court set aside the appointments of the appellants, finding them incompatible, the appellants approached the Apex Court.

While considering the matter, the Apex Court bench noted that the High Court's conclusion was based on there being nothing on record to show that the appellant had made efforts to get admitted to the institutes offering the diploma and that their candidature had, after due consideration, been rejected.

However, the Apex Court found this to be a mistaken position of fact. "We are of the view that the High Court erred in coming to such a conclusion in the facts of this case. The basis of the conclusion drawn by the High Court was that there was nothing on record to show that the appellant had made efforts to be admitted into the institutes offering the diploma and that their candidature had, after due consideration, been rejected. In other words, there was no impossibility in law to secure the qualifications as required," observed the bench.

"We find this to be the mistaken position of fact. The Notification issued by the competent authority, blocking two positions of Assistant Professor for the appellants, as reproduced above, tells us so. It makes clear that the two candidates would be sponsored for two-year diploma in their specialty, and subsequent to the completion of which, they would serve the institution for seven years in accordance with the necessary bond/agreement, which will have to be executed. A bond or agreement of this nature is formed when the employer financially supports the educational advancement of one of its employees, who is then expected to return and contribute to the employer's growth with the newly acquired experience and knowledge for a specific period. The condition is that if such an employee fails to do so, the bond they have executed, which may be for a specified amount of money, shall be forfeited, or the amount paid by the employer in sponsoring such education shall have to be returned," it further noted.

Noting that SKIMS was the one who had to make arrangements to secure admission for the doctors, the Apex Court bench observed, "The inescapable conclusion, then is that SKIMS, being the sponsor, could not arrange for the appellants to undertake the course."

"We also take exception to the manner, in which the recommendation of Dr. Singh has been cast aside by the High Court, insinuating that he had been involved only to obtain a stamp of approval for a foregone conclusion. It is not as if the person whose opinion is sought is unqualified to give the same; it is not as if such a request for guidance is misplaced, given that AIIMS, Delhi, is considered to be the apex Government Hospital - then, for the High to have rejected the same...in our view, is unjustified," the top Court bench noted.

The Supreme Court bench further opined that the High Court's observation was "nothing short of surprising since both the aforementioned Dr. U. Singh and the SKIMS appointing authority which, of course, is the Government, to have found that various colleges have shut down the diploma course - yet the High Court, without any verification of the documents produced by the respondents therein, came to its conclusion."

Accordingly, holding that the High Court had erred in setting aside the appointments of the appellants, the Apex Court reinstated the appellants. Further noting the statement of SKIMS in respect to the vacancies, the bench ordered,

"It flows from the above extract that the posts, which were blocked in favour of the appellants, live in the pendency of these proceedings since they had remained vacant for more than two years. For all the reasons recorded aforesaid, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled to and deserve to be reinstated in service as Assistant Professors with continuity in service. However, this may not be treated as a precedent. All other benefits, pecuniary and non-pecuniary, would accrue to them as well, save and except back wages, from the date of their removal till their reinstatement, which shall take place forthwith. Learned counsel for the State submits that the proposal for revival of the two specific posts blocked for the appellants is pending consideration before the Department of Finance, Government of the Union Territory of Jammu Kashmir and Laddakh. In the interest of justice, we direct that the said posts be revived."