Patna High Court
The Director, All India Institute Of ... vs Dr. Supriya Sharma And Anr on 10 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 PAT 1959
Author: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10173 of 2018
======================================================
The Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences, Patna, Phulwarisharif,
P.S.- Phulwarisharif, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Dr. Supriya Sharma W/o Dr. Gaurav Pande, Posted as Assistant Professor
SGPGI, Lucknow, resident of G-99, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S.-
Kankarbagh, District- Patna
2. Dr. Gaurav Pande S/o Dr. S.B. Pandey, Posted as Assistant Professor, SGPGI
Lucknow, Resident of G-99, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh,
Distirct-Patna.
.. ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Ad. S.G
Mr. Binay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Mohit Agarwal Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, Advocate
Mr. Vivek Mohan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 10-07-2019
Challenge in the present writ application is to the
order dated 13.04.2018 passed by learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal') in O. A./050/00103/2018 by which
the learned Tribunal has been pleased to hold that the applicants
who are respondent no. 1 and 2 in the present writ application
possess qualification in terms of the notification of the
Government of India in its Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare dated 20th February, 2009 (Annexure '6' to the O. A.)
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2018 dt. 10-07-2019
2/17
hence, the applicants should be considered for the post of
Additional Professor in the concerned department of the All
India Institute of Medical Science, Patna (hereinafter referred to
as the 'AIIMS').
In the present case AIIMS, Patna came out with an
advertisement dated 21.03.2017 inviting applications for
recruitment for the faculty and non-faculty (Group A ) posts for
various departments on direct recruitment basis. According to
the petitioner, the advertisement took all care to adhere to the
AIIMS (Amendment) Act, 2012, Rules and Regulations
governing AIIMS along with the relevant orders of the
Government of India. The 'advertisement' was not challenged
by the private respondents, they applied for their selection on
the post of Additional Professor, Surgical Gastroenterology and
Gastroenterology respectively. Respondent no. 1 wanted her
appointment to the said post in the department of Surgical
Gastroenterology whereas respondent no. 2 was looking for
appointment in the department of Gastroenterology . The
educational qualification for super speciality discipline
prescribed in the advertisement reads as under :
2. Additional Professor Essential for super speciality discipline:-
Educational Qualification
1. A medical qualification included in the I
or II schedule or part II of the third
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2018 dt. 10-07-2019
3/17
schedule to the Indian medical council Act
of 1956 (persons possessing qualifications
included in part II of third schedule should
also fulfill the condition specified in
section 13 (3) of the Act. )
2. A post graduate qualification e.g.
MD/MS or a recognized qualification
equivalent thereto in the respective
discipline/subject.
3. D.M. in respective discipline/subject
for medical supper-specialties and M.Ch.
in respective discipline/subject for surgical
super-specialties (2 years or 3 years or 5
years recognized course) or qualification
recognized equivalent thereto.
Experience:
Eight years teaching and/or research
experience in recognized institution in the
subject of specialty after obtaining the
qualifying degree of D.M./M.Ch. (2 years
or 3 years or 5 years course recognized
after MBBS) in the respective
discipline/subject or a qualification
recognized equivalent thereto.
Or
Seven years teaching and/or research
experience in recognized Institution in the
subject of specialty for the candidates
possessing 3 years recognized degree of
D.M. /M. Ch in the respective
discipline/subject or a qualification
recognized equivalent recognized
equivalent thereto.
It is not in dispute that both the respondents are
possessing the required degree as they have done DIPLOMATE
OF NATIONALBOARD (DNB) in the Super Specialty
discipline which is equivalent to D.M/M.Ch but what is in
dispute is their experience.
It is the contention of the respondents herein that the
seven years teaching and/or research experience in the subject
of specialty as required in terms of the advertisement be counted
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2018 dt. 10-07-2019
4/17
by taking into consideration the three years period which they
spent in pursuing the DNB course. The Director, AIIMS
(petitioner) has taken a plea that in terms of the advertisement
the seven years teaching and/or research experience in the
subject of specialty should have been obtained after obtaining
the qualifying degree of D.M/M.Ch or a qualification
recognized equivalent thereto. The respondents have heavily
relied upon a notification dated 20 th February, 2019 issued by
the Government of India in its Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare which is quoted hereunder for a ready reference:
"No. V. 11025/12/2004-MEP-(I)
Government of India
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
(Department of Health & Family Welfare)
New Delhi, Dated the 20th February, 2009
NOTIFICATION
S.O. 522 (E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
section (2) of the Section II of the Indian Medical Council Act,
1956 (Act 102 of 1956), the Central Government, after
consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the
following further amendments to the First Schedule to the said
ACT, namely :-
2. In the Medical Council Act, 1956, in First Schedule
"National Board of Examination"., after the entry "Diplomate
National Board (Pharmacology) [Diplomate in N.B. (Pharm)]",
the following note shall be inserted, namely:-
"Note:- 1. The Diplomate National Board (DNB),
qualifications included in this
Schedule shall be treated as equivalent
to M.D., M.S., D.M. and M. Ch.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2018 dt. 10-07-2019
5/17
Qualifications of the respective
specialty or super specialty, as the case
may be, for all purposes including
appointment to the teaching posts in the
medical institutions.
2. The teaching experience gained while
pursuing DNB courses shall be treated
as teaching experience for appointment
to the teaching posts in the medical
institutions." (emphasis supplied)
The case of the respondents is thus, based on the
notification as they argue that the 'AIIMS' cannot be permitted
to lay down a different condition with regard to the experience
de-hors to the "Note" inserted in the first schedule of the
Medical Council Act, 1956 after the Entry "Diplomate National
Board (Pharmacology) [Diplomate in N.B. (Pharm)]". On the
contrary the stand of the petitioner is that the teaching
experience gathered prior to DNB could not count. It is
submitted that AIIMS has got power to provide for the
qualification and experience for appointment to a post under the
institute and there is no bar either under the AIIMS Act or the
Rules framed thereunder by the Central Government if the
appointing authority in order to obtain the services of much
experienced faculties decides to require seven years of teaching
experience /research experience in the subject of specialty
acquired after obtaining the qualifying degree of D.M/M. Ch.
The learned Tribunal vide its order dated 13th April, 2018 passed
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2018 dt. 10-07-2019
6/17
in O.A/050/00103/2018 took note of the submissions of the
parties and accepted the case of the applicants. Pleas of the
Director, AIIMS, Patna have been rejected saying that the
advertisement in question cannot be allowed to override the
statutory provisions as indicated in the Medical Council of India
Act, 1956 after the amendments to the First Schedule vide
notification dated 20th February, 2009. According to the learned
Tribunal, the advertisement has to be in consonance with the
Medical Counsel of India Act, 1956 and has to be construed to
imply something in tune with the Act and not contradicting it
or offending it. The Tribunal relied upon the maxims:
"(i) UNIS EST EXCLUSION ALTERIUS:- Meaning
whatever has not been included has by implication excluded.
(ii) EXPRESUM FACIT CESSARE TACITUM- is
when there is express mention of certain things, anything not
mentioned is excluded."
In the ultimate analysis the Tribunal held that both the
applicants possess qualification in terms of the notification
(Annexure 'A/6') and they are to be considered for the posts in
question as they were eligible in terms of the advertisement
dated 21.03.2017 (Annexure- 'A/3').
The Director, AIIMS, Patna who is the writ petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2018 dt. 10-07-2019
7/17
before us has assailed the impugned order on various grounds. It
is his contention that the AIIMS Recruitment Rules are different
than that of the Medical Council of India and in the matter of
filling up of the post of Additional Professor, Gastroenterology
and Surgical Gastroenterology, he has rightly proceeded to
follow the AIIMS Recruitment Rules in its true letters and spirit.
It is stated that the AIIMS, Patna is an Autonomous institute of
national importance established under the provisions of the
AIIMS Act 1956 (Act No. 25 of 1956). It has been established
and incorporated as a body corporate having its own identity in
terms of Section 3 of the AIIMS Act, 1956.
It is pointed out that under Section 25 of the AIIMS
Act, 1956, the institute with the previous approval of the Central
Government may by notification in the official gazette make
regulations consistent with this Act and the Rules made
thereunder to carry out the purposes of the Act and without
prejudice to the generality of the powers such regulations may
provide for inter alia the posts for Professorships, Readerships,
Lecturer ships and other posts. It is submitted that the Central
Government has also framed Rules in exercise of its power
under sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the AIIMS Act 1956
whereunder Rule 24 provides that the age, experience and other
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2018 dt. 10-07-2019
8/17
qualifications for appointment to a post under the institute shall
be prescribed by the appointing authority keeping in view the
qualifications and experience prescribed by the Central
Government for similar posts before the applications from the
candidates are called for subject to the condition that non-
medical personnel shall not be appointed to the post of Director.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
learned Tribunal while considering the application completely
erred in taking a view that the advertisement in question is
overriding the statutory provision. The Tribunal, it is submitted,
gave emphasis on the notification dated 20.02.2009 (Annexure
'A/6' to the Original Application) and took a wrong view of the
matter stating that the advertisement is offending the
notification dated 20.02.2009 and is in conflict with the
statutory provision. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal
could not appreciate that the Medical Council of India Act
applies to the establishment of a Medical College established by
a person and in terms of Section 10 A of the Medical Council of
India Act, 1956 no person shall establish a medical college and
do such other acts and deeds as prescribed therein except with
the previous permission of the Central Government, however,
explanation 1 to Section 10 A specifically provides that for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2018 dt. 10-07-2019
9/17
purposes of this Section "person" includes any university or a
trust but does not include the Central Government, the AIIMS
which is an institute established under a special statute enacted
by the Parliament of India has been given an autonomous status
with all powers to make the appointments on various posts
subject, however, that in terms of Section 25 of the AIIMS Act,
1956 the institute shall carry out such directions as may be
issued to it from time to time by the Central Government for the
efficient administration of this Act.
Mr. S. D. Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General
has assailed the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal
by submitting that the advertisement is in consonance with the
recruitment rules of the AIIMS, Patna and by prescribing a
higher standard than one prescribed under the Indian Medical
Council Act or Medical Council of India Regulations, the
petitioner has not violated the provisions of the Indian Medical
Council Act or the Regulations framed thereunder by the
Medical Council of India.
Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, learned Advocate representing
the respondents has reiterated the submissions of the
respondents as according to him there cannot be a condition
prescribing experience of 7 years after obtaining the degree of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2018 dt. 10-07-2019
10/17
DNB and any attempt not to count the period spent in pursuing
DNB course for the purpose of teaching experience / research
experience would be contrary to the notification dated
20.02.2009.
Epilogue Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, I find that so far as the conditions with regard to experience prescribed in the advertisement is concerned, a literal interpretation of the condition is not in dispute. The first part of the experience requirement clearly provides "eight years teaching and/or research experience in recognized institution in the subject of specialty after obtaining (emphasis supplied) the qualifying degree of D.M/M.Ch. (two years or 5 years course recognized after MBBS) in the respective discipline or subject or a qualification recognized equivalent thereto", means the advertisement is talking of the teaching experience / research experience obtained in the subject of specialty after obtaining the qualifying degree. The alternative to the aforesaid requirement prescribes as under:-
"seven years teaching and/or research experience in recognized Institution in the subject of specialty for the candidates possessing three years recognized degree of Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2018 dt. 10-07-2019 11/17 D.M/M.Ch in the respective discipline/subject or a qualification recognized equivalent thereto".
Thus, those who obtained three years recognized degree of D.M/M.Ch., they should have seven years of teaching and/or research experience. This has to be read in consonance with the condition prescribed in respect of eight years of teaching or research experience where it has been clearly laid down that the experience should be after obtaining the qualifying degree.
In the present case the respondent no. 1 has the following degree and experience:
S. No. Degree Year of College
passing
1. MBBS March 1999 Goa Medical College
2. MS (General Surgery) 2002 Goa Medical College
3. DNB 2010 Amrita Institute of
(Gastoenterology) Medical Sciences,
Kocchi.
Experience:
S. Name of Institution From To Period Admissible
No. Experience for
teaching
1. SGPGI, Lucknow 2013 2017 4 years Admissible
2. AIIMS, Patna 2013 2013 5 months Not admissible
as it is not in the
subject
concerned
3. Carrier Institute of 2011 2013 2 years Not admissible
Medical Sciences as it is not in the
subject
concerned
4. Amrit Institute of 2007 2010 3 year As it was before
Medical Sciences having requisite
qualification
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2018 dt. 10-07-2019 12/17
5. Goa Medical 2002 2004 2 years As it was before College, Goa having requisite qualification
6. Goa Medical 1999 2002 4 years As it was before College, Goa having requisite qualification Similarly respondent no. 2 has the following educational qualification and experience:
S. No. Degree Year of College
passing
1. MBBS March 1997 Bangalore Medical
College, Bangalore.
2. MD 2005 Kasturba Medical
College, Manipal
3. DNB December National Board of
(Gastoewnterology) 2009 Examination
Experience:
Sl. No. Name of From To Period Departme Admissible
Institution nt Experience
for
teaching
1. Royal Jan 2008 June 2008 5 months Not
Melbourne admissible
Hospital as it is
Melbourne, before
qualifying
Victoria DNB
Examination
2. Amrit Institute 07-01- 31-01-2011 1 year Admissible
of Medical 2010
Sciences,
Kocchi
3. Carrier 03-02-2011 12-03- 2 years General Not
Institute of 2013 Medicine admissible
Medical as it is not in
Sciences & the subject
concerned
Hospital
4. Johns Hopkins 03-06- 15-07- 1 months Gastroente Admissible
2013 3013 rology
5. AIIMS, Patna 13-02- 28-07- 5 months General Not
2013 2013 Medicine admissible
as it is not in
the subject
concerned
6. SGPGI, 2013 2017 4 years Gastroente Admissible
Lucknow rology
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2018 dt. 10-07-2019 13/17 In the tabular chart shown above the admissible experience for teaching as have been considered by AIIMS, Patna have been shown. If the true literal interpretation of teaching experience as prescribed in the advertisement is applied in the given facts of the case, it would be evident that what is being submitted on behalf of the AIIMS, Patna is correct. The respondents had participated in the selection process knowing fully well the requirement of experience in terms of the advertisement but when their candidature were not found in accordance with the experience conditions, they moved the learned Tribunal for issuance of a direction to the respondents in the Original Application to issue interview letter and to consider their appointment for the post of Surgical Gastroenterology and Gastroenterology.
On perusal of the Original Application I find that their contention before the Tribunal was that the teaching experience obtained by them while pursuing the DNB Course should be treated as teaching experience for appointment to the teaching post in the Medical Institute as per given notification dated 20.02.2009. I find myself unable to agree with the conclusion reached by the learned Tribunal saying that the advertisement cannot be allowed to override the statutory provisions. In my Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2018 dt. 10-07-2019 14/17 considered opinion, the Tribunal was not dealing with a challenge to the advertisement and by seeking a experience obtained after possessing the required qualification in the specialty discipline the advertisement did not contravene any statutory provisions. It could not consider that AIIMS, Patna is an autonomous institution, has been incorporated as a body corporate and is a separate entity in the eye of law which has been conferred with powers to make Regulations for the matters enumerated under Section 29 of the AIIMS Act, 1956. Clause K of sub-section 1 of Section 29 of the Act of 1956 provides for one of the matters for which regulations may be framed by AIIMS is the Professorships, Readerships, Lectureships and other posts which may be instituted and persons who may be appointed to such Professorships, Readerships, Lectureships and other posts. Similarly under Section 28 of the AIIMS Act Central Government has been conferred with powers to frame rules. Clause 'C' of sub-section 2 of Section 28 of the AIIMS Act confers powers upon the Central Government to frame Rules regarding the conditions of service, the procedures to be followed by, and the manner of filling vacancies among, members of the Institute.
The AIIMS has in exercise of it's power under sub- Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2018 dt. 10-07-2019 15/17 section 1 of Section 29 of the AIIMS Act of 1956, with the previous approval of the Central Government made regulations namely the All India Medical Sciences Regulation 1999. Regulation 24 of the said regulation clearly provides that experience and other qualifications for appointment to a post under the Institute shall be prescribed by the appointing authority keeping in view the qualifications and experience prescribed by the Central Government for the similar posts before applications from the candidates are called for subject to the condition that non-medical personnel shall not be appointed to the post of Director. In exercise of such power the appointing authority has come out with the advertisement laying down the conditions including the qualification and experience for filling up the post of Additional Professor.
A careful reading of the Regulation 24 would show that while prescribing the qualification and experience the appointing authority has to keep in mind the qualification and experience prescribed by the Central Government for the similar post, therefore in my opinion AIIMS appointing authority cannot prescribe a qualification and experience lesser than what has been prescribed by the Central Government. It cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to say that the AIIMS cannot Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2018 dt. 10-07-2019 16/17 prescribe a qualification and experience better than what is prescribed by the Central Government. In my opinion the 'AIIMS' is competent to fix a bench mark as has been done in this case. Any other interpretation would take away the statutory status of Autonomous Institution of AIIMS, Patna.
It appears that the learned Tribunal has got influenced by the notification dated 20.02.2019 without appreciating that the appointing authority under the AIIMS Act, 1956 has got statutory power vested in it to prescribe for the experience and in the present case what has been done is that the bench mark of the experience has been raised by the appointing authority. The seven years experience obtained after obtaining the qualifying degree is required for the post of Additional Professor in super specialty. The advertisement, therefore cannot be said to be in conflict with the provisions of the Medical Council of India Act 1956 as there is no Bar either under the Medical Council of India Act or under the AIIMS Act 1956 to the appointing authority, AIIMS, Patna to prescribe a condition seeking better experienced candidates for appointment.
I therefore, find that the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal cannot sustain the test of law. It is liable to be set aside and is accordingly, set aside.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10173 of 2018 dt. 10-07-2019 17/17 The original application is dismissed and the writ application is allowed. There will, however, be no order as to the cost.
(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ) ( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) avin/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE 08.05.2019 Uploading Date 10.07.2019 Transmission Date