Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5723- 5724 of 1985 etc. From the Judgment and order dated 22.2.1985 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Representation Petn. No. 1041 and 1417 of 1983.

P.P. Rao, G.L. Sanghi, R. Venkataramani, R.A. Perumal, R.K. Gupta, B. Kanta Rao, K. Ram Kumar and A. Subba Rao for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. These three appeals and the special leave petitions are directed against the judgment and order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 22nd February, 1985 quashing the panel of names prepared by the State Government under r. 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical & Health Service Special Rules, 1982 to fill up the promotional post of Professor of Cardiology as on 1st July, 1983 reckoning the teaching experience of all the Assistant Professors in that super speciality in order of seniority, holding that the Assistant Professors of Cardiology in different medical colleges in the State who had the requisite five years teaching experience under r. 5 of the Rules having the alternate qualification in cl. (b) of Annexure II were eligible for promotion as such and directing the State Government to draw up a fresh panel after considering the claims of all such Assistant Professors of Cardiology treating them as possessing the requisite teaching experience in terms of r. S for the promotional post of Professor of Cardiology as on 1st July, 1983. That turns on the meaning of the expression 'two years training in Cardiology' as specified in cl. (b) of column 5 in serial no. 17 of Annexure II to the Rules prescribing the qualifications for the post of Professor of Cardiology. The Tribunal was of the view that such Assistant Professors of Cardiology were entitled to have the benefit of teaching experience grained by them as such after obtaining the post- graduate degree in MD/MRCP in that speciality on the crucial date 1st July, 1983 when the State Government purported to prepare a panel under r. 8 of the Rules. The issue involved is of far-reaching importance to the entire medical profession as similar problem is faced by the State Governments in promoting Readers/Associate Professors in a speciality to the post of Professor in that speciality in the medical colleges.

nised by the Government. There is no such material on record to establish that there is any such recognised unit either in the State of Andhra Pradesh or elsewhere. That apart, we fail to appreciate the reason why the Associate Professors, Readers, Assistant Professors of Cardiology teaching the subject Cardiology in the Medical Colleges for years together, should not be regarded as persons having special training in Cardiology within the meaning of cl. (b) of column 5 in serial no. 17 Annexure II. Any other view would lead to a very anomalous situation .

We have no doubt in our mind that the Medical Council of India with the best of intentions due to fall in standards of education felt it necessary in the public interest to prescribe second post-graduation in a super- speciality i.e. DM (Cardiology) to be an essential qualification for the promotional post of Professor of Cardiology. However, it must not be forgotten that there are many distinguished Physicians with specialisation in Cardiology, working as Professors of Medicine teaching students in different branches of Cardiology as a subject in various medical colleges throughout the country whose services are frequently called in as Consultants in cases of emergency. There are also many distinguished Assistant Professors/Readers/Associate Professors of Medicine in such medical colleges in different States teaching Cardio-

logy as a subject who have gained sufficient expertise and knowledge in different branches of Cardiology. It would be rather unfortunate if such Assistant Professors /Readers / Associate Professors of Medicine merely because they are MD/MRCP in Medicine were considered to be ineligible for appointment to the post of Professor of Cardiology even though they may have the requisite teaching experience in many branches of Cardiology for the last 15 to 20 years in medical colleges. In view of this, the expression 'five years teaching experience' occurring in r. 5 of the Rules as well as the phrase 'with two years training in Cardiology' in cl. (b) of column 5 in serial no. 17 of Annexure II of the Rules must, in our opinion, receive a liberal construction. We are inclined to the view that the experience gained by them while teaching students in different branches of Cardiology should be treated as sufficient to meet the requirements of r. 5 of the Rules as well as of cl. (b). We hope and trust that the Medical Council of India, Union Government and the State Governments, so also the State Medical Councils would give a second thought to the problem and try to evolve a solution to the problem by which the right of such persons to be considered for promotion to the post of Professor of Cardiology can be kept preserved, without allowing any fall in the standards of further education.