Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Robin Kaushik vs Union Public Service Commission Etc. on 19 May, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004)138PLR87
Author: S.S. Nijjar
Bench: S.S. Nijjar
JUDGMENT S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. This writ petition was admitted on 27.5.2003. The petitioner had made an application seeking permission to amend the writ petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. When the matter came up for hearing it was prayed that the application for amendment be dismissed as withdrawn as the petitioner will confine his claim in this writ petition to his eligibility only for the post under contention. The request of the counsel for the petitioner was not opposed. Application for amendment was dismissed as withdrawn. The writ petition was admitted. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner moved C.M. No.3687 of 2004 for disposal of the writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court on 24.7.2002 in L.P.A. No.2854 of 2001 (Medical Council of India v. Dr. Sukhwinder Singh Gill and another). This application came up for hearing on 19.3.2004 and the following order was passed:-
"Present:- Mr. R.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Mr. Namit Kumar and Mr. M.S. Guglani, Learned counsel for the respondent states that the controversy raised in the present writ petition is pending final adjudication in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment of the Division Bench which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioner was rendered on 24.7.2002. The present petition was not admitted till 27.5.2003. Mr. Namit Kumar appearing for respondent No.1, has submitted that this judgment was very much cited before the admission Bench. This fact is controverted by Mr. R.S. Mittal, learned Senior Advocate. I am of the considered opinion that it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to enter into such controversy.
To be put up for hearing after the decision of SLP No.21106 of 2002.
2. The petitioner has filed the present CM. No. 6727 of 2004 seeking an order restraining respondents No. 1 and 2 from raising any objection regarding the validity of the Post Graduate qualification of the applicant-petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. When this application came up for hearing on 14.5.2004, it was argued by the counsel for the Medical Council of India that the application is not maintainable as no such direction could be issued during the pendency of the writ petition. According to the learned counsel, this would amount to allowing the writ petition. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment to file a better affidavit setting out the irreparable loss which would be caused to the petitioner, if the order dated 19.3.2004 is not suitably modified. The petitioner has filed the affidavit on 17.5.2004. When the matter came up for hearing, relying on the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid order dated 19.3.2004, Mr. Guglani has vehemently argued that the aforesaid order does not require any modification. In the affidavit which has been Filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that the applicant-petitioner has been working as Senior Lecturer in the Department of Surgery at Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh respondent No.3 since September 20, 200l till date. A list of 12 doctors is given in paragraph 6 who are similarly situated as the petitioner having under gone the three years course of studies at the Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana who have been admitted to the further speciality course in Surgery known as MCH at various Hospitals and Institutions. It is further stated that the decision of the SLP may take a number of years by which time the applicant-petitioner would become over age for any government job. The dream of the applicant-petitioner of becoming a successful Surgeon, after obtaining the degree of Master of Surgery by further advancing his career by higher qualification and serving the public in the prestigious Government institutions would be shattered permanently. In 1998, the applicant-petitioner had not imagined that the degree for which he had successfully studied would be questioned by the Medical Council of India. By postponing the decision of the writ petition, the applicant-petitioner will suffer irreparable injury and will not get any worthwhile relief, even if the writ petition is ultimately allowed after a number of years.
3. Having considered the entire matter, 1 am of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be decided forthwith.
4. In view of the above, CM is allowed. The order dated 19.3.2004 is modified and the writ petition is set down for final hearing forthwith.
5. Mr. Namit Kumar, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 1-Union Public Service Commission. The petitioner passed his MBBS. Degree in April, 1992.He was awarded the Degree of Master of Surgery by the Punjab University in December 1997. From April, 1998 to May 2001, he worked as Senior Resident in Surgery in different Medical Colleges & Hospitals in New Delhi. In the year 2001, respondent Nos.3 and 4 advertised two posts of Senior Lecturer in Surgery on contract basis. The petitioner applied for one of the two posts. The degree of M.S. (Surgery) granted by the Punjab University is a recognised degree under Section 11(1) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereafter referred to as "the Act"). After interview, the petitioner was duly selected and appointed as a Senior lecturer in the department of General Surgery in the Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, respondent No.3. The petitioner has been working on the said post since 20.9.2001 till date. In April/May, 2002, respondent No. 1 issued an advertisement for three posts of Senior Lecturers in the respondent No.3-College. The qualifications for the job are;-
(a) MBBS Degree;-
(b) M.S.(Surgery) from a recognised University; and
(c) 3 years teaching experience after obtaining the M.S. (Surgery) Degree.
6. The petitioner fulfills all the three essential qualifications required for the job and applied for one of the posts advertised by respondent No. 1. On 19.12.2002, respondent No.1 addressed a letter to the petitioner asking him to submit a Certificate from Medical Council of India that M.S. (Surgery) degree from Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana is recognised by them. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid communication by letter dated 13.12.2002 saying that the M.S. Degree awarded to the petitioner had been awarded by the Punjab University, Chandigarh, which is a recognised medical qualification Under Section 11 of the Act. This was also confirmed by the Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana in their letter dated 31.12.2002 addressed to respondent No.1. By letter dated 17.1.2003, the petitioner had been invited for interview for one of the open posts of Senior Lecturer (General Surgery) at the respondent No.3-College which was to be held on 5.2.2003. It was, however, added at the bottom of the interview letter to the following effect:-
"You have been called for interview provisionally subject to production of a certificate from Medical Council of India that M.S. (Surgery) Degree from Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana is recognised by them, otherwise you will neither be interviewed nor be paid any T.A."
7. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid condition added in the interview call letter (Annexure P-6) dated 17.1.2003 by filing the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, interalia seeks a declaration to the effect that the degree awarded to him in M.S. (Surgery) by the Punjab University is a recognised degree under Section 11(1) of the Act and no further steps are required to be taken under Section 11(2) of the Act.
8. The petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court rendered in C.W.P. No. 15809 of 2000 (Dr. Sukhwinder Singh Gill v. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research Chandigarh and others) decided on 2.8.2001 wherein it has been held that a degree of a University included in the 1st Schedule to the Act is a recognised degree under Section 11(1) of the Act. In paragraphs 14, 15, 17 and 18 of the aforesaid judgment it has been held as follows;-
"14. A reading of the above would show that if a medical qualification has been granted by any University or by any medical institution which is included in the first schedule shall be deemed to have been recognised for the purpose of medical qualification by the Medical Council of India. Schedule-1 is a Schedule showing the recognised medical qualifications granted by the University or Medical Institutions of India. Under the Heading Punjab University, the recognised medical qualification is Master of Surgery (Surgery) and abbreviation for registration is M.S. Surgery (Punjab). Meaning, thereby that Master of Surgery (Surgery) is a recognised medical qualification for the purpose of University and a holder of this qualification is a Master of Surgery (Surgery). If this is so I fail to understand on what premises, respondent No. 1 has held that petitioner is not fulfilling the qualifications as laid down in the prospectus quated above.
15. My observations above get strength from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 933 Dr. B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan, and with approval I would like to refer to para No. 11 of the said judgment wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:-
"A Post Graduate Medical Degree granted by a University duly established by statute in this country and which has also been recognised by the Indian Medical Council by inclusion to the Schedule of Medical Council Act has ipso facto to be regarded, accepted and treated as valid throughout our country. In the absence of any express provision to the contrary such a degree does not require to be specifically recognised by other Universities in any state in India before it can be accepted as a valid qualification for the purpose of appointment to any post in such a state."
xxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
17. The learned counsel for the respondent has invited my attention to a booklet titled Medical Council of India. Directory of Postgraduate Medical Education Courses, issued by the Medical Council of India in the year 2000 Edition, and also to the Schedule of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and at Item No. 81, appearing at page No.37 in book-let (Medical Council of India), it has been written as follows:-
"Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab, Punjab University 8 NR".
18. This item will not help the case of the respondent No. 1 or that of respondent No. 2. It talks with the institution and not with the University. The Medical Council of India might not have recognised Daya Nand Medical College for the purpose of its qualifications as required under Section 10 of the Medical Council Act but if the Medical Council of India has recognised the Punjab University as a good University for the purpose of awarding the degree, it cannot question that the degree awarded by the Punjab University does not fulfill the criteria of the prescribed qualifications laid down for the entrance test."
9. The Medical Council of India challenged the aforesaid judgment by filing L.P.A. No.2854 of 2004, which was dismissed by the judgment dated 24.7.2002 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. Respondent No.3 and 4 accepted the judgment of the learned Single Judge and did not file any LPA.
10. The respondents No. 1 and 3 have filed their separate written statements. Respondent No. 1 has not controverted the factual position upto the point that the petitioner was one of the applicants for the post of Senior Lecturer (General Surgery). It is, however, stated that the application of the petitioner was duly considered and the petitioner was called for interview provisionally subject to the production of a certificate that M.S. (General Surgery) degree awarded to him by the Punjab University from Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana is recognised by the Medical Council of India. It is further stated that it is mandatory on the part of the candidates to provide the proof of their recognition for medical qualification. Hence a letter was sent to the petitioner on 19.12.2002 requesting him to send the requisite certificate within 20 days. The petitioner sent the Certificate issued by the Principal, Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana. However, instances occurred in the recent past where it was later on ascertained that the said degree from a candidate of the same college is not approved by M.C.I. Therefore, in the case of the petitioner also, the Commission also referred the matter to the M.C.I, which is the competent authority for laying down qualifications and experience of teaching posts in Medical Colleges/Institutions. M.C.I, has again confirmed by its letter dated 23.1.2003, which is appended to the written statement of respondent No. 1 as Annexure R-III, that M.S. (General Surgery) qualification granted by the University in respect of the students of Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana is not recognised by the M.C.I, for the purposes of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. In view of the above, it is stated that the petitioner has become ineligible for the post. It is further stated that by interim order dated 4.2.2003, this Court had directed that the petitioner be interviewed provisionally on 5.2.2003 alongwith other candidates. On the basis of his performance before the interview Board, the petitioner did not find place in the list of candidates recommended for the posts in question.
11. In the short reply filed by respondent No. 3, it has been emphatically stated that degree acquired by the petitioner is not recognised since he has acquired the qualification from an unrecognised institution not having complete infrastructure. The Postgraduate Committee of the Council at its meeting held on 17.9.2002 has taken the following decision:-
"The Post-graduate Committee considered the Council Inspector's Report (January 2002) and decided not to approve Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana for the award of MS (General Surgery) qualification earlier granted by Punjab University and now Baba Farid University of Health Services, Faridkot because of the following deficiencies :-
i) Clinical material is inadequate.
ii) The composition of Unit III and IV is incomplete as regard teaching faculty is not as per MCI norms i.e. minimum of 3 faculty members per Unit.
iii) The present teaching faculty in the department of Surgery is not sufficient even for the annual intake of undergraduate students for which the institution is recognised."
The Institution was directed to henceforth stop admissions in MS (General Surgery) Course.
12. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the short reply filed by respondent No.2. It has been pointed out that the decision taken by the Post-graduate Committee cannot have a retrospective effect as the petitioner had been granted the degree in the Session 1995-1997. It is reiterated that the degree granted to the petitioner by Punjab University is included in the 1st Schedule to the Act, and therefore, is a recognised degree under Section 11(1) and 11(2) of the Act.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper-book.
13. It appears that the controversy raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra. The matter seems to be squarely covered by the judgment dated 2.8.2001 passed by the learned Single Bench in CWP No. 15809 of 2000, which is attached as Annexure P-8 to the writ petition. The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.2854 of 2001. The argument raised in the present petition by Mr. Guglani, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has already been considered and rejected in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment, as follows :-
"Mr. Amarjit Singh contends that the respondent had studied at the Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. This Institute has not been recognised by the Medical Council of India.
On a consideration of the matter, we are satisfied that this is not the requirement of Section 11. Under the provisions of Section 11, if the degree and the University are included in the Schedule, the person possessing the degree is deemed to have a recognised medical qualification. The respondent fulfills this requirement totally.
Mr. Amarjit Singh contends that even the Institute should have been recognised. He emphasized the word "Institute" in Section 11.
The contention raised by the counsel is wholly misconceived. A perusal of the Schedule shows that medical degrees are being awarded not only by the University but also by Institutes. In fact, a closer examination of the Schedule shows that the following Institutes or Colleges are mentioned in the Schedule.
1. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi.
2. College of Physicians and Surgeons, Bombay.
3. Manipal Academy of Higher Education.
4. National Board of Examinations, New Delhi.
5. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
6. State Medical Faculty of Bengal.
7. Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow.
8. Sher-I-Kashmir Instt. of Medical Sciences, Srinagar.
9. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum.
10. Shri Ramchandra Medical College and Research Instt. Chennai.
14. The aforesaid observations of the Division Bench are binding on a Single Bench of this Court.
15. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the M.S. (Surgery) degree conferred on the petitioner by the Punjab University is a recognised medical qualification under Section 11(1) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and no further steps are required to be taken under Section 11(2) of the Act for its recognition. No further relief can be granted to the petitioner as during the pendency of the writ petition, the candidature of the petitioner for post of Senior Lecturer was considered and he was not selected. No costs.