Kerala High Court
Dr.Jacob Thomas vs The Medical Council Of India on 15 September, 1984
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/3RD PHALGUNA, 1938
WP(C).No. 124 of 2017 (M)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
------------------------
DR.JACOB THOMAS,
PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF DERMATOLOGY,
AMRITHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,PONEKKARA,
KOCHI-682041.
BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM)
SRI.K.R.GANESH
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,POCKET-14,SECTOR 8,
DWARAKA,NEW DELHI-110077.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. THE CHAIRMAN,
POST GRADUATE COMMITTEE,
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA,
POCKET 14,SECTOR 8,
DWARAKA,NEW DELHI-110077.
4. AMRITHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,PONEKARA,
KOCHI-682041.
R1,R3 BY ADV. SRI.TITUS MANI VETTOM, SC,
R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
SKG
WP(C).No. 124 of 2017 (M)
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.E3-6721/84/MCK DATED
15.9.1984 OF THE PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE,
KOTTAYAM
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.77/2002/H&FWD DATED
8.1.2002 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E1/9629/2002/MCT DATED
18.6.2002 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL,MEDICAL COLLEGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.2267/07/H&FWD DATED
25.6.2007 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E1/5733/2007/TDMCA DATED
30.4.2008 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL,T.D.MEDICAL
COLLEGE, ALAPPUZHA
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P)NO.455/76 HEALTH DATED
22.12.1976 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF M.D.DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 14.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE
AMRITHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF REPORT DATED
9.12.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE COMMITTEE DEPUTED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 1.7.2015 ISSUED
BY THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
EXHIBIT P10(A) TRUE COPY OF MINIMUM QUALIFICATION FOR TEACHERS IN
MEDICAL INSTITUTES REGULATION,1998 AMENDED AS PER
NOTIFICATION DATED 24.7.2009 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL
COUNCIL OF INDIA`
SKG
WP(C).No. 124 of 2017 (M)
--------------------------
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE RELATING TO THE
INSPECTION CONDUCTED BY THE MCI IN T.D.MEDICAL
COLLEGE RELATING TO THE PETITIONER WHICH IS
CONTAINED IN PAGE 141 DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE
OF MCI.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 10.12.2015 ISSUED
BY THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
NOTIFICATION NO.MCI-12(2)/98-MED "MINIMUM
QUALIFICATIONS FOR TEACHERS IN MEDICAL
INSTITUTIONS REGULATIONS,1988".
ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.MCI-12(2)/2009-
MED-22654 DATED 21.07.2009
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
SKG
P.V.ASHA, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No. 124 of 2017
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who is the Professor and HOD of Dermatology in Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences-the 4th respondent, has filed this Writ Petition, challenging Ext.P10 letter by which the Medical Council of India informed that his promotion as Professor and Head, while he was working under the Medical Education Service under the State Government, was contrary to Medical Council of India (MCI) norms stating that he had only two years and 4 months of service as Associate Professor against the requirement of four years and hence decided not to recommend recognition of M.D (DVL) qualification for 2 seats granted by Amrita Viswa Vidyapeetham University in the 4th respondent college.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Tutor in the Medical Education Service under the Government of Kerala on 27.04.1982 through the Kerala Public Service Commission. On promotion, he joined as Assistant Professor as per order dated 16.01.1993 and thereafter he was promoted as Associate Professor as per order dated 15.06.2002 and as Professor as per order dated W.P.(C). No. 124 of 2017 2 13.10.2004. He retired from service on 30.04.2008, while working as Professor in T.D Medical College, Alappuzha. He joined the 4th respondent Institute thereafter as Professor and Head of the Department(HOD). The petitioner points out that he had acquired his Post Graduate Degree in Dermatology and Venerology the year 1986, and was awarded the Degree of Doctor of Medicine in the branch of Dermatology and Venerology, as per Ext.P7 Certificate issued by the MG University on 19.12.1987, It is the case of petitioner that his promotion as Associate Professor and thereafter as Professor were strictly in accordance with the rules in force at the relevant time i.e Ext. P6 Government Order dated 22.12.1976, according to which the qualification prescribed for promotion as Associate Professor as well as the Professor in the Department of Dermatology/Venerology was MD(Dermatology or Venerology,) and 5 years' experience as Assistant Professor in Dermatology/Venerology, in Medical College after requisite post graduate qualification. As the promotion of petitioner as Associate Professor as well as Professor were ordered at a time when he was fully qualified and the orders of his promotion were strictly in accordance with the rules, which prevailed at the relevant time, under the State Government and which governed the promotions in Medical Education W.P.(C). No. 124 of 2017 3 Service. Therefore it is stated that the finding in Ext P10 that petitioner was not qualified, is liable to be vacated.
3. The petitioner also points out that on the basis of his representation,the MCI had in Ext.P12 letter dated 10.12.2015, informed the petitioner that after considering the documents with respect to his academic qualifications, teaching experience and research publications, the petitioner was found eligible for the post of Professor in the Department of Dermatology/Venerology and Leprosy in Medical College as per the rules and regulations of the Council.
4. The 1st respondent has filed a statement producing the Minimum Qualification of Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1988 as Ext R1(a) and the amended version of the same issued on 21.07.2009. It is their contention that as per Ext.R1(a) Regulations 1998, the requisite qualification for appointment as Professor is 4 years experience as Associate Professor in the speciality concerned from a recognised Medical College and desirable minimum of four research publications indexed in Journal/National Journal and one research publication in International Journal. It is also stated that as per the amended regulations the number of years of service as Associate Professor has been reduced to 3 years. However, it is their case that, at the relevant time when the W.P.(C). No. 124 of 2017 4 petitioner was promoted as Professor on 14.10.2004, he was having experience of two years and four months only, that is from 18.06.2002 to 19.08.2002 at Medical College, Trivandrum and from 20.08.2002 to 13.10.2004 at Medical College, Alappuzha. Since the said service was not sufficient for promotion as Professor, the petitioner could not have become the HOD of the 4th respondent Institute. According to the first respondent, the medical Institutions imparting Post Graduate courses in Medical Education, shall apply for the recognition of PG medical qualification to the Central Government through affiliating University, when the first admitted batch is due to appear for the examination to be conducted by the University. The 1st respondent, examined the Assessors report on the standard of examination of the 4th respondent College and seeing the deficiency in the qualification of the Professor and HOD, decided not to recommend recognition and directed the College to rectify the deficiencies.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the shortage of service found in the category of Associate service can well be made good, treating the requisite period of service petitioner rendered as Professor as service rendered as Associate Professor.
W.P.(C). No. 124 of 2017 5
6 I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent.
7. The deficiency, detected by the respondents is want of requisite experience in the post of Associate Professor. The petitioner rendered service as Professor for the period from 14.10.2004 till his retirement on 30.4.2008. The deficiency pointed out is that petitioner was promoted when he was having only 2 years and 4 months of service as Associate Professor. But the respondents did not consider the fact that the petitioner served as Professor for a period of 3= years. The respondents do not have and cannot have any dispute over the fact that the petitioner was promoted as Professor from the post of Associate Professor as per order dated 13.10.2004 and he retired from service while working as Professor on 30.04.2008. If 20 months or even two years of the service rendered by the petitioner as Professor, is treated as service rendered as Associate Professor, the disqualification/deficiency pointed out by the respondents will no longer survive and there cannot have any further objection, in case the service on notional reversion of the petitioner as Associate Professor for the period from 14.10.2004 to 13.10.2006 is also considered to have been rendered W.P.(C). No. 124 of 2017 6 preceding his his promotion as Professor. In that event the very basis for the decision not to recommend recognition to the seats in MD Dermatology/Venerology will no longer exist. In that view of the matter, the objection raised by the respondents 1 to 3 with respect to the qualification of the petitioner-the Professor and Head of the Department becomes unsustainable. Ext.P10 report to the extent it declares petitioner's promotion as unacceptable as being contrary to MCI norms is unsustainable and illogical.
Under the above circumstances, it is declared that the petitioner was fully qualified for holding the post of Professor and the Head of the Department of Dermatology in accordance with the Ext P6 rules as well as the Regulations Ext R1(a). Deficiencies pointed out in Ext.P10 to the extent it relate to the qualification of the petitioner shall stand set aside.
The writ petition is accordingly,allowed.
Sd/-P.V.ASHA, Judge lsn