SRINAGAR: In an unprecedented development, the government on Thursday asked Dr. Omar Javed Shah, Professor Surgical G.E. and Dean Medical Faculty SKIMS to hold the charge of Director SKIMS, hours after J&K high court stayed its order whereby Dr. A.G. Ahanger from the post.
“As approved by the Competent Authority and in partial modification of Government Order No. 45-GAD of 2018 dated 06.01.2018, it is hereby ordered that Dr. Omar Javed Shah, Professor
Surgical G.E. and Dean Medical Faculty, SKIMS shall hold the charge of Director, SKIMS & Ex-Officio Secretary to Government, in addition to his own duties, till further orders,” reads an order issued here by the GAD after high court earlier stayed formers order by virtue of which the state government relieved Dr. A.G. Ahanger as Director, SKIMS and Ex-offino Secretary to Government, with immediate effect.
He was also asked to report to the General Administration Department while Dr. Pawan Kotwal (IAS), Principal Secretary to the Government, Health & Medical Education Department, was asked to discharge the functions of the post of Director SKIMS in addition to his own duties till further orders.
“The order no.45-GAD of 2018 dated 6th January 2018 is stayed till next date of hearing before the Bench. However, this order shall be subject to objections from other side,” said a single bench of the court comprising Justice M K Hanjura and posted the petition, filed by Dr Ahanger, on January 31.
In his petition, Dr Ahanger said that he had taken action against the three faculty members at his own level but the power to suspend any faculty member does not vest in him. Dr Ahanger said that when he came to know about the sting operation, he immediately informed the Government and based on the approval granted by the Chairperson, the three faculty members were placed under suspension pending enquiry against them. He said he suspects that his removal from the post of Director was for the benefit of “some doctor, who is likely to be made the Director SKIMS on incharge basis, leaving the petitioner in the state, in which he is at present.”
He submitted said he also suspects that there was a well thought of plan and scheme to engage somebody else in his position and this could only be realized after his removal when there was “no justification to pass the impugned order as the petitioner had nothing to do with the misconduct of three doctors, whom the petitioner had placed under suspension after the accord of approval by the Chairperson.” (GNS)