Government
of Andhra Pradesh & Anr, Vs. Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao & Anr, [1988] INSC
69 (9 March 1988)
Sen,
A.P. (J) Sen, A.P. (J) Ray, B.C. (J)
CITATION:
1988 AIR 1048 1988 SCR (3) 173 1988 SCC (2) 386 JT 1988 (1) 569 1988 SCALE
(1)542
ACT:
Andhra
Pradesh Medical & Health Service Special Rules 1982-Challenge to panel
prepared under rule 8 of-To fill up promotional post of Professor of Cardiology
with requisite five years' teaching experience under rule 5 having the
alternate qualification specified in cl. (b) of Annexure 11 to Rules, eligible
for promotion to the post of Professor of Cardiology.
HEAD NOTE:
%
These appeals and the special leave petitions were directed against the
judgment and order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, 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 to the Rules 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. 5 for the promotional post of
Professor of Cardiology as on 1st July, 1983.
There
were four vacancies in the post of Professor of Cardiology. On 1st July, 1983,
the State Government prepared a panel of all Assistant Professors of Cardiology
in Government Medical Colleges in the State having the requisite teaching
experience under r. 5 after obtaining the post-graduate qualification as
specified in the Annexure II, and included in the panel the names of Dr. G. Subramanayam,
Dr. A. Rajagopala Raju and Dr. Soghra Begum, Assistant Professors of
Cardiology, who had on the crucial date-1st July, 1983 five years' teaching
experience after obtaining their post-graduation degree in DM (Cardiology) as
enjoined by r. 5 read with the first proviso thereto, and by order dated the
17th August, 1983, promoted them to the post of Professor of Cardiology.
174
The respondents Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao and Dr. G. Sai Gopal then moved the
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal assailing the impugned order of
promotion, characterising the action of the State Government in the matter of
computation of five years' teaching experience after post- graduation degree in
DM (Cardiology) as being wholly arbitrary and irrational.
The
appellant C.H. Umesh Chandra came up in appeal as the view expressed by the
Tribunal prejudicially affected him. He had obtained his post-graduate degree
in MD in Medicine in December, 1975 and his second post-graduate degree in DM
(Cardiology) in April, 1980. In view of the fact that he had obtained his
second post-graduate degree in DM (Cardiology) in April, 1980, he sought to
support the stand of the Government as he had a better chance of promotion to
the post of Professor of Cardiology.
After
these matters were heard and the judgment was reserved by this Court, a similar
question came up before the Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. Sivsanker Lal Bajoria
& Anr.,- Civil Appeal No. 4456 of 1986 by Special Leave granted to the
State Government of Orissa against the judgment and order of the High Court,
evolving a rule of substantial compliance, and therefore, these matters were
re-listed. In the Civil Appeal No. 4456 of 1986, the Court issued notice to the
Medical Council of India to clarify its stand as to the eligibility of
Assistant Professors/Readers in Cardiology to the promotional post of Associate
Professor/Professor in Cardiology and in particular to the import of the term
'two years special training' within the meaning of Regulation 5(2)(b) of the
Indian Medical Council Regulations, 1970, framed under s. 33 of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956. The Court desired the Indian Medical Council to
specify the particular institution where such training was imparted. An
affidavit sworn to by Assistant Secretary on behalf of the Medical Council of
India was filed, placing its point of view.
Dismissing
the appeals and the special leave petitions, the Court ^
HELD:
The issue involved was of far-reaching importance to the entire medical
profession as similar problem was 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.
[179E-F]
In these cases, the entire controversy was due to the failure of the 175 State
Government to give the benefit of the teaching experience gained by the
Assistant Professors after they had obtained their post-graduate degree in
MD/MRCP in Medicine under cl (b) of Column 5 in serial No 17 of Annexure II.
[187G]
Rule 4 of the Rules in terms speaks of the eligibility of such class of
Assistant Professors of Cardiology for promotion to the post of Cardiology who possess
five years' teaching experience. The expression 'teaching experience' as
defined in r. 5 speaks of 'teaching experience in the speciality concerned in a
medical college or an institute recognised by the Medical Council of India
after obtaining post-graduate qualification as specified in Annexure II'.
The
words used are 'after obtaining post graduate qualification', it does not speak
of the second postgraduate qualification. Rule 5, therefore, takes in both the
qualifications specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Column 5 in serial No. 17 of
annexure II, namely, (a) DM (Cardiology) and (b) MD/MRCP in Medicine with two
years' training in Cardiology. On the crucial date, 1st July, 1983, cl. (b) was very much there and the Government was bound
to consider the claims of the aforesaid respondents like other officers
belonging to that class before drawing up a panel under r. 8. There was no
warrant for the submission that since under r. 9(2), an Assistant Professor
with the requisite five years' teaching experience after obtaining his second
post- graduate degree in DM (Cardiology) would have preferential claim over
those having the qualification mentioned in cl.
(b)
i.e. MD/MRCP in Medicine with two years' training in Cardiology, the State
Government was entitled to ignore the claims of the latter class altogether. On
its plain construction, r. 9(2) is a rule of preference and has, therefore, to
be applied at the stage of making appointments to the post of Professor of
Cardiology and not while drawing up a panel under r. 8. The Government was
obviously misled by the wrongful assumption (i) that since alternate
qualification in cl. (b) of Column 5 in serial 'No. 17 of Annexure II had been
deleted by GOMS No. 789 dated 12th December, 1983, it was not necessary for it
to consider the claims of the aforesaid respondents and others similarly
situate in drawing up a list of eligible Assistant Professors of Cardiology,
and (ii) that such officers were rendered ineligible by reason of r. 9(2) and,
therefore, their claims needed not to be considered. The Tribunal was,
therefore, justified in quashing the impugned panel prepared by the State Government
under r. 8 of the Rules and in directing the Government to prepare a panel
afresh after considering the claims of all the Assistant Professors of
Cardiology with five years' teaching experience after their post-graduation in
MD/MRCP in Medicine with 2 years' training in Cardiology. [189C-H; 190A-B] 176
There was no substance whatever in the contention that the alternate
qualification in cl. (b) being in conflict with the recommendation of the
Medical Council of India, must be deemed to have been replaced by implication
and was non-est w.e.f. 31st May, 1977. The Government had no doubt the
recommendations of the Council, conveyed by the letter of the Secretary dated
26th April, 1978, that after 31st May, 1977, for all teaching posts higher than
Tutor in higher specialities i.e. Cardiology/Neurology/Gastro- Enterology/Thoracic
Surgery/ Neuro Surgery/Plastic Surgery/ Paediatric Surgery/ Urology, the
candidates must possess the post-graduate qualification in the speciality
concerned i.e.
DM/M.Ch.
after MD/MS or other equivalent qualification, as might be approved by the
Council from time to time. The letter also went on to say that the existing
qualification MD/MS or an equivalent qualification with two years' special
training in a recognised training centre in the speciality concerned, would
cease to be sufficient qualification for appointment to the aforesaid teaching
posts from that date.
Nevertheless,
the Government failed to appreciate that the recommendation of the Council was
only recommendatory and could not override a rule framed under the proyiso to
Art. 309 of the Constitution. The panel had to be drawn up by the State
Government strictly in conformity with the rules of recruitment made under the
proviso to Art. 309 and not on the basis of the recommendation of the Council.
[190C-F] As was manifest from the affidavit filed by the Indian Medical
Council, the Council is only a recommendatory body.
Constituted
under section 3 of the Act, the Indian Medical Council is an expert body
intended and meant to control the minimum standards of medical education and to
regulate their observance. A fortiori, the recommendations made by the Council
or the Regulations framed by it are only recommendatory and not mandatory. It
is not for the Council to prescribe qualifications for recruitment to posts of
Professors. Readers and Lecturers; it can only lay down broad guidelines therefor.
Such qualifications have necessarily to be prescribed by the framing of Rules
under the proviso to Art. 309. The right to be considered for promotion is a
condition of service and it can only be regulated by a rule framed under the
proviso to Art. 309.
The
Medical Council in its affidavit accepted that there were no special guidelines
laid down for Cardiology, and asserted that some Universities/Institutions
might have prescribed the syllabus. The contention of the State Government and
the other appellants that the recommendations of the Medical Council as
conveyed by the letter of the Secretary dt. 26th April, 1975, rendering Assistant Professors of Cardiology, having the
alternate qualification of 177 post-graduate degree in MD/MRCP in Medicine,
ineligible for promotion to the post of Professor of Cardiology even though
they had the requisite five years' teaching experience, appeared to be wholly
misconceived and unwarranted. [190G-H; 191E-H; 192A] The present case was
concerned with the meaning of the expression 'teaching experience' occurring in
r. 5 of the Rules, and with the class of officers who, after their appointment
as Assistant Professors of Cardiology on having obtained post-graduate degree
in MD/MRCP had been teaching the subject Cardiology for years together. Indeed,
the alternate qualification specified in cl. (b) of column 5 in serial No. 17
of Annexure II takes in this class of officers and makes them eligible under r.
5. On the crucial date, 1st
July, 1983, cl. (b)
was still there and the Government was bound to consider the claims of such
officers before drawing up a panel under r. 8. [193C-E] Emphasis was laid by
counsel for the State Government and other appellants on the words 'with two
years training in Cardiology' with the submission that none of the respondents
had the requisite training. The expression 'special training' is defined in r.
7 as the work done by an Assistant Professor in the concerned recognised unit
and exclusively devoted to the speciality. The question then arises for the
applicability of r. 7, there are two conditions to be fulfilled, firstly, there
must be an institution set up either by the Medical Council of India or by the
Government or Universities exclusively devoted to imparting teaching in the
different courses of Cardiology, and secondly, such an institution should have
been recognised by the Government. There was no material on record to establish
that there was any such recognised unit either in the State of Andhra Pradesh or elsewhere. That apart, it could
not be appreciated why the Associate Professors, Readers, Assistant Professors
of Cardiology, teaching Cardiology in the medical colleges for years together,
should not be regarded as having special training in Cardiology within the
meaning of cl. (b) of column 5 in the serial No. 17 of Annexure II. Any other
view would lead to a very anomalous situation. It would be a travesty of justice
if the officers belonging to the class like the respondents-representationists
Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao and Dr, G. Sai Gopal, Assistant Professors of Cardiology
with five years' teaching experience after their post-graduation in MD/MRCP in
Medicine as on the 1st July, 1983, were not empanelled by the State Govt. under
r. 8 to fill up vacancies in the post of Professor of Cardiology, even though
they possessed the requisite qualifications under r. 5 of the Rules. It must be
remembered that the alternate qualification in cl. (b), namely MD/MRCP in
Medicine with two years' training in 178 Cardiology was still there and it was
not open to the Government to ignore the same merely because it was in conflict
with the recommendation of the Medical Council of India, as conveyed in the
letter of the Secretary dated 26th April, 1976. [193F-H; 194A-E] There were
many distinguished Assistant Professors/Readers/ Associate Professors of
Medicines in the medical colleges in the different States, teaching Cardiology
as a subject, who had gained sufficient expertise and knowledge in the
different branches of Cardiology, and it would be unfortunate if such Assistant
Professors/Readers/Associate Professors of Medicine were, merely because they
were MD/MRCP in Medicine, considered ineligible for appointment to the post of
Professor of Cardiology, even though they had the requisite teaching experience
in the many branches of Cardiology for the last 15 to 20 years in the 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 receive a liberal construction. The experience gained by them while
teaching 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). The Court
expressed the hope that the Medical Council of India, the Union Government and
the State Governments as 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 could be kept preserved without allowing any fall in the
standards of further education. [196H; 197A-D] State of Madhya Pradesh v. Km. Nivedita
Jain, [1981] 4 SCC 296 and Union of India & Ors. v. S.B. Kohli & Anr.,
[1973] 3 SCR 117, referred to.
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.
179
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.
The
matters were heard a long time back and closed for judgment, but then a similar
question arose in Civil Appeal No. 4456 of 1986 State of Orissa v. Dr. Sivsanker
Lal Bajoria & Anr., and therefore the matters were re-listed. By order
dated 12th December,
1986 this Court
granted special leave to the State Government of Orissa against the judgment
and order of the Orissa High Court evolving a rule of substantial compliance.
But learned counsel for the parties in these matters stated that they had made
their submissions on merits and desired that the Court should proceed to
judgment.
At the
very outset, we wish to place on record that in Civil Appeal No. 4456 of 1986
we had on 29th October, 1986 issued notice 180 to the Medical Council of India
to enable it to clarify its stand as to the eligibility of Assistant
Professors/Readers in Cardiology to the promotional post of Associate
Professor/Professor of Cardiology and in particular as to the import of the
term 'two years special training' within the meaning of Regulation 5(2)(b) of
the Indian Medical Council Regulations, 1970, framed under s. 33 of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956. We desired the Indian Medical Council to specify the
particular institution where such special training is imparted It would be
profitable to reproduce the relevant averments in the affidavit sworn by the
Assistant Secretary on behalf of the Medical Council of India placing its point
of view:
"With
reference to the question whether any syllabus has been prescribed for further
studies in Cardiology is concerned, I state that the Council is a regulatory
body which has its own rules under the Act. It does not prescribe any syllabus
which is within the jurisdiction of every University and medical institutions.
The Medical Council of India only prescribes broad guidelines for training in
post-graduate/ post doctoral courses leading to post graduation in D.M.
(Cardiology), period of study, conduct of examination etc; true copy of the
said broad guidelines which will cover post graduation courses is annexed
herewith. It may be submit ted that there are no special guidelines for
Cardiology. However it is submitted that some Universities/Institutions might
have prescribed the syllabus.
With
reference to the second question whether further training/instructions are
imparted in any college/ institution/university or hospital, I submit that
various departments attached to various colleges have started imparting post
graduation courses after obtaining permission from the Medical Council of
India. Till this day, a list of such institutions which are imparting such recognised
post doctoral training in Cardiology is given below:
1.
Madras Medical College, Madras (Madras University)
2.
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (P.G.I., Chandigarh)
3. All
India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi.
181
4. G.B. Pant Hospital (Delhi University)
5. G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur (Kanpur University) Colleges/Institutions which have already been approved for
conducting D.M. courses in Cardiology are as under:
Permission
accorded (STILL TO BE RECOGNISED)
1. Osmania Medical College, (Osmania University, Hyderabad)
2. Gandhi Medical College, (Osmania University, Hyderabad)
3.
Armed Forces Medical College, Pune (Poona University)
4. Kasturba Medical College, Manipal (Mangalore University)
5. Bangalore Medical College, Barlgalore (Bangalore University)
6. S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack (Utkal University) (Permitted in Sept., 86)
7. Grant Medical College, Bombay (Bombay University)
8. Seth G.S. Medical College, Bombay (Bombay University)
9. T.N. Medical College, Bombay (Bombay University)" Emphasis supplied The affidavit sworn by the
Assistant Secretary to the Medical Council of India is admirably vague and
reveals a sad state of affairs. It is quite manifest that when the Secretary to
the Medical Council of India addressed a letter dated 26th April, 1976 conveying the recommenda- 182 tions
of the Medical Council of India purporting to lay down that after 31st May, 1977 for all teaching appointments to
posts higher than Tutor in higher specialities i.e.
Cardiology/
Neurology/Gastro-Enterology / Thoracic Surgery / Neuro-Surgery / Plastic
Surgery / Paediatric Surgery/Urology, the candidates must possess post graduate
degree qualifications in the speciality concerned i.e. DM/M.
Ch. after MD/ MS or other equivalent
qualifications as may be approved by the Council from time to time. There was
no prospectus for a course of study for post-graduation in a super speciality
nor were there any institutions for imparting post doctoral training in all the
subjects. There was also a Note added that the already existing qualifications
with 'two years special training' in a recognized training centre in the speciality
concerned, shall cease to be sufficient qualification for appointment to the
aforesaid teaching posts from that date. For the sake of completeness, we think
it necessary to set out the aforesaid letter of the Secretary, which runs as
follows:
"After
31st May, 1977, for all teaching appointments to posts higher than Tutor in
higher specialities i.e. Cardiology, Neurology / Gastro- Enterology / Thoracic
Surgery / Neuro-Surgery / Plastic Surgery / Paediatric Surgery / Urology, the
candidates must possess post-graduate degree qualifications in the speciality
concerned i.e. D.M./M.Ch. after M.D./M.S. Or other equivalent qualification as
may be approved by the Council from time to time. The existing alternative
qualifications i.e. M.D./M.S. Or an equivalent qualification with two years special
training in a recognised training centre in the speciality concerned, shall
cease to be sufficient qualification for appointment to aforesaid teaching
posts from that date.
Provided
that the requirements of possessing post graduate degree qualification in the
concerned higher speciality shall not be applicable for higher appointments in
the case of existing teachers holding regular teaching posts whose appointment
was initially made on the basis of two years special training in the speciality
after the requisite M.D./M.S. " It would be noticed that the affidavit
does not disclose the date or dates from which the institutions listed above,
namely, Madras Medical College, Madras, Post Graduate Institute of Medical
Education & Research, Chandigarh, All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
183 New Delhi, G.B. Pant Hospital, Delhi and G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur
were recognised for imparting post- graduate/post doctoral training. Nor does
it specify the Universities/Institutions which have prescribed a syllabus for
the post-graduate/post doctoral courses leading to post graduation in DM
(Cardiology), period of study, conduct of examination etc.
It is
not necessary to set out the facts in any detail and it is sufficient to give
only the salient facts to elucidate the points in controversy. On 1st July, 1983 the State Government purported to
prepare a panel of all Assistant Professors of Cardiology in Government Medical
Colleges in the State having the requisite teaching experience under r. 5 after
obtaining the post-graduate qualification as specified in Annexure II. There
existed on that date four vacancies in the post of Professor of Cardiology
which occurred on 1st
November, 1982, 1st March, 1983, 1st May, 1983 and in June 1983. According to the Government, the teaching
experience contemplated by r. 5 of the Rules was the teaching experience gained
by the Assistant Professor in the concerned speciality after obtaining the
second post-graduation degree in that speciality. The Government therefore
included in the penal the names of Dr. G. Subramanyam, Dr. A. Rajagopala Raju
and Dr. Soghra Begum, Assistant Professors of Cardiology, who had as on the
crucial date 1st July, 1983 five years teaching experience after obtaining
their post-graduation degree in DM (Cardiology) as enjoined by r. 5 read with
the first proviso thereto, and accordingly by order dated 17th August, 1983
promoted them to the post of Professor of Cardiology. Thereupon, the
respondents Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao and Dr. G. Sai Gopal moved the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal assailing the impugned order of promotion. The
claim of the respondent Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao was that he having obtained his
degree in MD/MRCP in Medicine was posted as Assistant Professor of Cardiology w.e.f.
18th January, 1978 and while continuing to work as such, he was selected to
undergo a super speciality course in Cardiology i.e. DM and was deputed for
that purpose on 18th January, 1980. After completing his DM (Cardiology) in
April, 1981, he was posted as Assistant Professor of Cardiology from 12th June,
1981. Upon that basis, he claimed that apart from being seniormost Assistant
Professor of Cardiology, he had five years of teaching experience in the
Department of Cardiology as Assistant Professor of Cardiology as on 18th
January, 1983. According to him, if a panel had been prepared on 1st January
1983, he would have been the seniormost candidate in service with requisite
qualifications for any vacancy from 1st January, 1983 to 1st July, 1983. He characterised
the action of the State Government in 184 the matter of computation of five
years teaching experience after post-graduation as required under r. 5 of the
Rules only after the second post-graduation degree in DM (Cardiology) as being
wholly arbitrary and irrational. The State Government in the counter before the
Tribunal repudiated his claim and contended inter alia that under r. 5 of the
Rules, one must possess five years teaching experience in the speciality
concerned after obtaining the post-graduate qualification in the concerned speciality
i.e. after the second post-graduate course. It was averred that after
completion of his post-graduate course in DM (Cardiology), the respondent had
been posted as Assistant Professor of Cardiology on 12th June, 1981 and thus he
would complete the three years period as Assistant Professor of Cardiology
after acquiring his post-graduate degree in DM (Cardiology) only on 11th June,
1984. Tn the normal course.
it was
said, he would then become qualified for promotion as Professor of Cardiology.
The
claim of the other representationist Dr. G. Sai Gopal was more or less similar.
He acquired his degree in MD in Medicine in 1973 and was posted as Assistant
Professor of Cardiology in September 1973. He obtained his second post-
graduate degree in DM (Cardiology) on 14th December, 1981.
His
grievance is that he has been discriminated against by the Government. While he
was working as Assistant Professor of Cardiology after obtaining his
post-graduate degree in MD in Medicine, in 1978 he applied for study leave to
join the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi for undergoing
further studies for the second post-graduation degree in DM (Cardiology). It
was refused and he was asked to resign from service while the Government
granted such leave to respondent no. 3 Dr. Soghra Begum and therefore he should
have been treated at par with her as if leave had been granted, and thus he
would have completed his DM (Cardiology) course in the year 1980 itself. During
the year 1979 the Government however relented and granted him leave to study DM
course in Cardiology in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi
where he completed his DM (Cardiology) on 13th December, 1981. As he had put in
1 year 6 months 27 days after his post-graduate degree in DM (Cardiology) and
even after giving credit for 2 years 4 months and 18 days i.e. the second
post-graduation course period, he was short of the requisite five years
teaching experience and thus the Government considered him ineligible for
promotion.
Of the
three Assistant Professors of Cardiology promoted as Professors, the Government
placed before the Tribunal a tabular chart showing that Dr. A Rajagopala Raju
had a teaching experience of 185 about 3 years 3 months as on 1st January, 1983
and with the gaining of teaching experience during the second post- graduation
degree of about two years, he had a total teaching experience of over five
years. As regards Dr. Soghra Begum, it was averred that she already had 3 years
2 months and 16 days teaching experience as Assistant Professor of Cardiology
after obtaining her post-graduate degree in MD/MRCP in Medicine, when the
Government deputed her to undergo further studies for the second post-graduate
course in DM (Cardiology) and therefore the Government, as in the case of Dr. A
Rajagopala Raju, decided to count the period when she was undergoing the second
post-graduate course in DM (Cardiology) towards her teaching experience.
It
would appear from the tabular chart that Dr. G. Subramanyam who had also been
promoted to the post of Professor of Cardiology was not a party to the
proceedings before the Tribunal and had in fact been promoted to that post in
November, 1982. In view of this, and as he was admittedly senior to the
respondent Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao, he did not press his claim against Dr. G. Sai
Gopal.
The
appellant C.H. Umesh Chandra has come up in appeal as the view expressed by the
Tribunal prejudicially affects him. He obtained his post-graduate degree in MD
in Medicine in December, 1975 and his second post-graduate degree in DM
(Cardiology) in April, 1980. He had put in as Assistant Professor of Cardiology
3 years and 2 months. Even after giving credit for 1 year and 9 months i.e. the
period of his second post-graduation course in DM (Cardiology), the Government
was of the view that he was not eligible. In view of the fact that he obtained
his second post-graduation degree in DM (Cardiology) in April, 1980, he seeks
to support the stand of the Government as he has a better chance for promotion
than the others to the promotional post of Professor of Cardiology.
To
appreciate the contentions advanced, it is necessary to set out the relevant
provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Medical & Health Service Special Rules
1982, as amended from time to time. They are extracted below:
"3.
Clinical and Non-Clinical Specialities: The Clinical and Non-Clinical Specialities
shall be as shown in Annexure-I to these rules." "(4). Teaching
experience for promotions:
186
(a) Professors-Clinical, Non-Clinical and Dental: A Deputy Civil Surgeon or an
Assistant Professor shall be eligible for promotion as Professor after putting
in a total teaching experience of 5 years in either or both categories in the
concerned specialities.
(b)
Deputy Civil Surgeon (Clinical, Non- Clinical, Dental): * * * * (c) The
teaching experience specified in sub- rules (a) and (11) above, shall be
computed as on the 1st January or the 1st July of the year in which panels for
promotions are prepared. " "(5) Teaching experience: Teaching
experience specified in rule 4 shall mean teaching experience in the speciality
concerned in a Medical College or an institute recognised by the Medical
Council of India after obtaining post-graduate qualification as specified in
Annexure II.
Provided
that the teaching experience during second post-graduation in a recognised
College or Institute within the country or abroad in the concerned speciality
of those who are:
(i)
Holding teaching appointments; or (ii) Holding beds under their charges or (iii)Doing
tutorial work;
shall
count towards teaching experience for purposes of this rule." "7.
Special Training: Special training specified in these rules shall mean the work
done by an Assistant Professor or Deputy Civil Surgeon in the concerned recognised
unit and exclusively devoted to the speciality. Teaching experience during the
special training period in the speciality shall count towards the
training." "(8) Preparation of panels: (1) The Government shall
prepare a panel to fill-up all the promotional posts included 187 in Class-I
available on 1st January and 1st July of the year based on the eligibility of
the persons including the teaching experience as on 1st January and 1st July of
the year." "(9) Qualification:(1) No person shall be eligible for
promotion to the posts specified in column (3) of Annexure II unless he/she
possesses the qualifications specified in the corresponding entry in column (5)
thereof.
(2)
Preference shall be given to persons who possess the qualifications specified
in item (a) over those who possess the qualifications in item (b) of Column (5)
of Annexure II for the posts of Professors and Deputy Civil Surgeons belonging
to the specialities specified in Annexure III." ANNEXURE II (NON-CLINICAL
SPECIALITIES) See Rules 5 & 9 "S. Name of Post Qualifications Degrees
No. Speciality (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 17 Cardiology Professor/ Must possess one
(a) D.M Dy. Civil of the following (cardiology) Surgeon post-graduate b)M.D./M.R.C.P.
qualifications in in the concerned Medicine speciality from with 2 a recognised
years University/Board/ training Body. in Cardiology." The entire
controversy is due to the failure of the State Government to give the benefit
of the teaching experience gained by Assistant Professors after they obtained
their post-graduate degree in MD/ MRCP in Medicine under cl. (b) of column 5 in
serial no. 17 of Annexure II.
In the
proceedings before the Tribunal, the State Government in the counter revealed
that there was correspondence between the Directorate of Medical & Health
Department with Secretary to the Medical & Health Department since the year
1981 for deletion of the alternate qualification prescribed in cl. (b) of
column 5 in serial no. 17 188 of Annexure II, namely MD/MRCP in Medicine, as
amended from A time to time, for all teaching appointments in the super specialities,
as per the recommendations of the Medical Council of India. On the
recommendation of the Directorate, it was said that the State Government had
decided to delete the alternate qualification prescribed in r. 5 of the Rules
for eligibility to the higher post of Professor in a super speciality, and had
sent a draft amendment to the Special Rules for concurrence to the Andhra
Pradesh Public Service Commission and the same was awaited. The recommendations
of the Indian Medical Council had not by then i.e. till the hearing before the
Tribunal, been translated into action.
The
judgment of the Tribunal however reveals that the alternate qualification in cl.
(b) of column 5 in serial no. 17 of Annexure II i.e. MD/MRCP in Medicine with
two years training in Cardiology stood deleted w.e.f. 12th December, 1983. On the crucial date however i.e. On
1st July, 1983, when the impugned panel was
prepared, the alternate qualification in cl. (b) was still there.
The
contention on behalf of the State Government and the other appellants before
us, as was before the Tribunal, is that the rules made under the proviso to
Art. 309 of the Constitution, are subject to the recommendations made by the
Medical Council of India which is invested with statutory power under s. 19A of
the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 insofar as they relate to coordination and
determination of standards for medical education and in particular to
prescription of qualifications for appointment to teaching posts in higher specialities.
It is said that the directions of the Council, as conveyed by the Secretary by
his letter dated 26th April, 1976 were mandatory, notwithstanding any provision
to the contrary contained in the Andhra Pradesh Medical & Health Service
Special Rules, 1982 and must therefore prevail and were binding on the
Government. The Government duly considered the claims of the respondents
aforesaid and came to the decision that they were ineligible for promotion to
the post of Professor of Cardiology inasmuch as they did not possess the
requisite five years teaching experience in the speciality concerned after
obtaining their post-graduation qualification within the meaning of r. 5 of the
Rules i.e. second post-graduation degree in DM (Cardiology). The further
contention is that, at any rate the alternate qualification in cl. (b) of
column 5 in serial no. 17 of Annexure II, namely, MD/MRCP in Medicine with two
years training in Cardiology, having been deleted by GOMS No. 789, Medical
& Health Department, dated 12th December, 1983, it was not necessary for
the Government to comply with the direction made by the Tribunal to draw up a
panel of the eligible candidates afresh under r. 8 of the Rules. The
contention, 189 in the alternative, was that the Tribunal failed to appreciate
that the teaching experience gained by Assistant Professors of Cardiology
before obtaining the second post- graduate degree in the speciality concerned.
i.e. after the post-graduate degree in MD/MRCP in Medicine, could not be taken
into consideration inasmuch as under r.9(2) preference has to be given to
persons who possess the qualifications specified in cl. (a) over those who
possess the qualifications specified in cl. (b) for the post of Professor
belonging to the speciality specified therein and therefore it was not
justified in quashing the panel prepared by the State Government under r. 8. We
are afraid, these contentions cannot prevail.
The
fallacy underlying the arguments is obvious. Rule 4 in terms speaks of the
eligibility of such class of Assistant Professors of Cardiology for promotion
to the post of Professor of Cardiology who possess five years teaching
experience. The expression teaching experience' as defined in r. 5 speaks of
'teaching experience in the speciality concerned in a medical college or an
institute recognised by the Medical Council of India after obtaining
post-graduate qualification as specified in Annexure II'. The words used are
'after obtaining postgraduate qualification'; it does not speak of the second
post-graduate qualification. Rule 5 therefore takes in both the qualifications
specified in cls. (a) and (b) of column 5 in serial no 17 of Annexure II,
namely, (a) DM (Cardiology) (b) MD/MRCP in Medicine with two years training in
Cardiology. On the crucial date 1st July, 1983, cl. (b) was very much there and the Government was bound
to consider the claims of the aforesaid respondents like other officers
belonging to that class before drawing up a panel under r. 8. There is no warrant
for the submission that since under r. 9(2) an Assistant Professor with the
requisite five years teaching experience after obtaining his second
post-graduate degree in DM (Cardiology) would have preferential claim over
those having qualification mentioned in cl. (b) i.e. MD/ MRCP in Medicine with
two years training in Cardiology, the State Government was entitled to ignore
the claims of the latter class altogether. On its plain construction, r. 9(2)
is a rule of preference and has therefore to be applied at the stage of making
appointments to the post of Professor of Cardiology and not while drawing up a
panel under r. 8. The Government was obviously misled by the wrongful
assumption (i) that since the alternate qualification in cl. (b) of column 5 in
serial no. 17 of Annexure II had been deleted by GOMS No. 789 dated 12th
December, 1983, it was not necessary for it to consider the claims of the
aforesaid respondents and others similarly situate in drawing up a list of
eligible Assistant Professors of Cardiology to fill up 190 the promotional post
of Professor of Cardiology, and (ii) that such A officers were rendered
ineligible by reason of r. 9(2) and therefore their claims need not be
considered.
The
Tribunal was therefore justified, in our opinion, in quashing the impugned
panel prepared by the State Government under r. 8 of the Rules and in directing
the Government to prepare a penal afresh after considering the claims of all
Assistant Professors of Cardiology with five years teaching experience after
their post-graduation in MD/MRCP in medicine with two years training in
Cardiology.
There
is no substance whatever in the contention that the alternate qualification in cl.
(b) being in conflict with the recommendation of the Medical Council of India,
must be deemed to have been repealed by implication and was non-set w.e.f. 31st
May, 1977. The Government had no doubt before it the recommendations of the
Council as conveyed by the letter of the Secretary dated 26th April, 1976 that
after 31st May, 1977, for all teaching posts higher than Tutor in higher specialities
i.e. Cardiology /Neurology /Gastro-Enterology/ Thoracic Surgery/ Neuro
Surgery/Plastic Surgery/Paediatric Surgery/ Urology, the candidates must
possess the post-graduate qualification in the speciality concerned i.e.
DM/M.Ch. after MD/MS or other equivalent qualification, as may be approved by
the Council from time to time. The letter also went on to say that the existing
qualification MD/MS or an equivalent qualification with two years special
training in a recognised training centre in the speciality concerned, shall
cease to be sufficient qualification for appointment to the aforesaid teaching
posts from that date. Nevertheless, the Government failed to appreciate that
the recommendation which was later approved of by the Government of India and
acquired the status of a regulation, was only recommendatory and could not
override a rule framed under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. The
panel had to be drawn by the State Government strictly in conformity with the
rules of recruitment made under the proviso to Art. 309 and not on the basis of
the recommendations of the Council.
As is
manifest from the affidavit filed by the Indian Medical Council, it is only a
recommendatory body. This Court has in a series of decisions defined the
precise functions and duties of the Medical Council of India. The Indian
Medical Council constituted under s. 3 of the Act is an expert body intended
and meant to control the minimum standards of medical education and to regulate
their observance. We may only cite the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Km. Nivedita Jain. [1981] 4 SCC
296 where the Court had to consider the effect of 191 the Regulations framed by
the Medical Council and the various executive orders issued by the State
Government.
Analysing
the various provisions of the Act in depth, it was observed as follows:
"An
analysis of the various sections of the Act indicate that the main purpose of
the Act is to establish Medical Council of India, to provide for its
constitution, composition and its functions and the main function of the
Council is to maintain the medical register of India and to maintain a proper
standard of medical education and medical ethics and professional conduct for
medical practitioners. The scheme of the act appears to be that the Medical
Council of India is to be set up in the manner provided in the Act and the
Medical Council will maintain a proper medical register, will prescribe minimum
standards of medical education required for granting recognised medical
qualifications, will also prescribe standards of post graduate medical
education and will further regulate the standards of professional conduct and
etiquette and code of ethics for medical practitioners." Emphasis supplied
A fortiori, the recommendations made by the Council or the Regulations framed
by it are only recommendatory and not mandatory. It is not for the Council to
prescribe qualifications for recruitment to posts of Professors, Readers and
Lecturers. It can only lay down broad guidelines therefor. Such qualifications
have necessarily to be prescribed by the framing of Rules under the proviso to
Art. 309. Right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service and it
can only be regulated by a rule framed under the proviso to Art. 309.
The
Medical Council in its affidavit has itself said that it only prescribes broad
guidelines for training in post-graduate/post doctoral courses leading to post-
graduation in DM (Cardiology), period of study, conduct of examinations etc. It
goes further and accepts that there are no special guidelines laid down for
Cardiology and asserts that some universities/institutions might have
prescribed the syllabus. It has listed five institutions which are imparting
post doctoral training in Cardiology. Such being the legal position, the
contention of the State Government and the other appellants that the
recommendations of the Medical Council as conveyed by the letter of the
Secretary dated 26th April, 1976 rendering Assistant Professors of Cardiology
having the alternate qualification of post- graduate degree in MD/MRCP in
Medicine ineligible for Promotion to the post of Professor of Cardio- 192 logy
even though they had the requisite five years teaching experience, appears to
be wholly misconceived and unwarranted. In support of the contention, learned
counsel appearing for the State Government and the other appellants relied upon
the following observations made by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v.
S.B. Kohli & Anr. [1973] 3 SCR 117:
"Before
the growth of specialised qualifications Surgeons obtaining the F.R.C.S. in
general surgery used to specialise in orthopaedics and other specialities
either by doing a diploma in orthopaedics or simply by practice and experience.
The
regulations framed by the Medical Council require that in addition to the
general F.R.C.S., a surgeon must have a diploma in orthopaedics before he could
be appointed a Professor, Reader or Lecturer in orthopaedics. That regulation
has been accepted by the Government. This gives an indication of what is
considered a postgraduate degree in the concerned speciality. Therefore, in the
present case, a mere degree of F.R.C.S. as such cannot be deemed to be a
post-graduate qualification in the concerned speciality of orthopaedics. To
hold otherwise would mean that a person who has the qualification of F.R.C.S.
could be deemed to be specialised in Tuberculosis and orthopaedics, although he
is also a specialist in general surgery. Therefore, the second Respondent does
not hold a post-graduate degree in the concerned speciality, orthopaedics and
as such, his promotion to the post of a Professor in orthopaedics was illegal
and against the Central Health Service Rules" We fail to see the relevance
of these observations to the facts of the present case. In Kohli's case, the
question turned on the construction of the phrase 'a post-graduate degree in
the concerned speciality' in items 2 and 3 of Annexure II of the Second
Schedule of the Central Health Service Rules, 1963. The question that arose for
consideration was whether the second respondent in that case who was FRCS
(General Surgery) of the Edinburgh University, had a post-graduate degree in
the concerned speciality and was eligible for promotion to the post of Professor
of orthopaedics Surgery in the Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi. It was
conceded before the High Court on behalf of the Central Government that the
amendments made in the Central Health Service Rules were intended to give
effect to the Regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council. The Court held
that the various 193 entries in Annexure II of the Second Schedule had to be
interpreted in a reasonable manner and pointed out that the degree in FRCS was
in General Surgery. The amended rule made by the Central Government was to
implement the Regulation framed by the Indian Medical Council that in addition
to the General FRCS, a Surgeon must have a diploma in orthopaedics before he
could be appointed a Professor, Reader or Lecturer in orthopaedics In that
context, the Court held that the Central Government having accepted the
recommendation of the Council and framed a rule, a mere degree of FRCS as such
could not be deemed to be a post-graduate qualification in the concerned speciality,
orthopaedics. In the present case, we are concerned with the meaning of the
expression 'teaching experience' occurring in r.5 of the Rules and with the
class of officers who after their appointment as Assistant Professors of
Cardiology, on having obtained post- graduate degree in MD MRCP, have been
teaching the subject Cardiology for years together. Indeed, the alternate
qualification specified in cl. (b) of column 5 in serial no.
17 of
Annexure II takes in this class of officers and makes them eligible under r. 5.
We have already repelled the contention that the alternate qualification in cl.
(b) being in conflict with the recommendation of the Council must be deemed to
have been repealed by implication w.e.f. 31st May, 1977 or rendered non-est as from that
date. On the crucial date 1st July, 1983,
cl (b) was still there and the Government was therefore bound to consider the
claims of such officers before drawing up a panel under r. 8..
Faced
with this difficulty, learned counsel appearing for the State Government and the
other appellants strenuously contended before us that the respondents i.e.
Assistant
Professors of Cardiology with the requisite teaching experience of five years
after obtaining their postgraduate degree in MD/MRCP in Medicine did not come
within the purview of cl. (b) of column S in serial no. 17 of Annexure II.
Emphasis was laid on the words 'with two years training in Cardiology' and it
was submitted that none of the respondents had the requisite training. We
enquired from the learned counsel if there was any institution imparting such
training in Cardiology but they were unable to throw any light on the subject.
The expression 'special training' is defined in r. 7 to mean the work done by
an Assistant Professor in the concerned recognised unit and exclusively devoted
to the speciality. The question then arises for the applicability of r. 7.
There are two conditions to be fulfilled, firstly, there must exist an
institution set up either by the Medical Council of India or by the Government
or Universities exclusively devoted to imparting teaching in different courses
of Cardiology and secondly, such institution should have been recog- 194 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 .
It
would be a travesty of justice if the officers belonging to the class like the
respondents- representationists Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao and Dr. G.Sai Gopal,
namely, Assistant Professors of Cardiology with five years teaching experience
after their post-graduation in MD MRCP in Medicine as on 1st July, 1983, were
not empanelled by the State Government under r. 8 to fill up vacancies in the
post of Professor of Cardiology, even though they possessed the requisite
qualifications under r. 5 of the Rules. It must be remembered that the
alternate qualification in cl. (b), namely, MD MRCP in Medicine with two years
training in Cardiology was still there and it was not open to the Government to
ignore the same merely because it was in conflict with the recommendation of
the Medical Council of India. as conveyed in the letter of the Secretary dated 26th April, 1976.
In the
world as a whole today, particularly in the developed countries, both the
health and the wealth of mankind is better than it was. Even in the developing
world, the health conditions of many communities have improved considerably in
recent decades. For the developing countries as a whole, life expectancy at
birth increased from 32 years before the Second World War, to about 49 years in
the 1960s, compared with about 70 years for the industrial world. With the conquest
of tuberculosis and other infectitious diseases, disorders of the blood
vessels, hypertension, ischemia, acute myocardial infraction, arteriosclerosis,
acute heart failure etc. are the chief causes of death in at least half of
population, and perhaps a quarter as many deaths from cancer. New physiological
and biophysical methods of study, together with post war developments in
surgery and open heart surgery, have revolutionised the investigation and
management of heart disease in the Western World. Our country is not lagging
behind and during the last few decades has seen the emergence of the new class
of specialised physicians dealing with cardiovascular disorders, known as
Cardiologists, for the management and treatment of patients suffering from heart
diseases.
195
From time to time, a personality seintillates across the medical firmament who
dazzles all beholders. Few people of his generation have surpassed the eminence
of Dr. S.K. Mukerji, MD/MRCP (Lond.), FRCP (Lond.), Emeritus Professor of Medicine,
Medical College, Indore who perhaps today is the leading
Physician and Cardiologist in the country and at whose feet many Physicians and
Cardiologists have attained great distinction. He has had a remarkable ability
to objectify an important clinical finding and to cite all relevant literature
without disquisting the patient. Indeed his clinical analysis usually gained
the confidence and respect of his patient in a most reassuring manner. His
originality in selecting clinical problems and investigating them by the
available physiological methods, especially disorders of the heart and
circulation, are familiar to the entire medical world. He truly depicts the
characteristics of a thoughtful physician excelled in the care of the sick, as
delineated by T. R. Harrison . renowned physician and author of the standard
text book 'Principles of Internal Medicine' in his preface in these words:
"No
greater opportunity or obligation can fall the lot of a human being than to be
a physician. In the care of the suffering he needs technical skill, scientific
knowledge, and human understanding. He who uses these with courage, humality,
and wisdom will provide a unique service for his fellow man and will build an
enduring edifice of character within himself. The physician should ask of his
destiny no more than this, and he should be content with no less." Another
outstanding personality whose name comes to our mind is that of Dr.P.N. Laha,
MD, Double MRCP (Lond.), Emeritus Professor of Medicine, Medical College, Gwalior who has taught many of the leading
Cardiologists in the country.
A
delightful, vivacious, passionate physician, he stimulates everyone with whom
he comes contact and he has placed an indelible stamp on the medical events of
his days. His many illuminating articles on different branches of Cardiology
appear in the authoritative text-book 'Prineiples of Medicine', edited by Dr. Rustom
J. Vakil who, along with Dr.
(Col.) K.K. Datey, were two of the foremost Cardiologists
in the country. Two of the physicians who attained great eminence in the field
of Cardiology were the late Dr. Sujoy B. Roy, Head of the Department of
Cardiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and the late Dr.
K.L.
Wig, Professor of Medicine, Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Eduction
and Research, Chandigarh and later Director, All India Institute of Medical
Sciences, New Delhi in their 196 time. Other equally eminent Cardiologists who
have brought honour to the country are Dr. P.C. Dhanda, MD/MRCP, Head of the
Department of Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical College, New
Delhi, Dr. (Lt. Col.)
K.L. Chopra, Professor of Cardiology, Medical College, Poona. Advisor to the Armed Forces, Head of the Cardiology
Department, Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital, President Heart Care Foundation,
Dr. Padmavati, Professor & Head of the Cardiology Department, G.B. Pant
Hospital, President, All India Heart Foundation, Dr. M.L. Bhatia, Head of the
Cardiology Department, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Dr. R.K. Caroli,
Professor of Cardiology and Head of the Cardiology Department, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia
Hospital, Dr. S.C. Manchanda, Professor of Cardiology, All India Institute of
Medical Sciences, Dr. B.K. Goyal, Visiting Professor of Cardiology in different
Medical Colleges in Bombay, Dr. (Lt. Col.) K. K. Malhotra, eminent Physician
and Senior Specialist and Consultant (Cardiology), Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia
Hospital, Dr. P.D. Nigam, Professor of Cardiology and Head of the Department,
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Dr. M. Khalilullah, Director, G.B. Pant Hospital, Dr. N.S. Dixit, Head of the Cardiology Department, Batra Hospital, Dr. K. Banerji,
MD, Professor of Medicine, Medical college, Jodhpur, Dr. C.E. Bhandari,
Professor of Medicine, Medical College, Jabalpur, Dr. V.G. Nivasarkar,
Professor of Medicine, Medical College, Gwalior, Dr. R.K. Sen, Sr. Consultant, B.L. Kapur Hospital, New Delhi, a well-known Physician and Cardiologist, Dr. S.K. Minocha,
MD. Sr. Physician & Cardiologist, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital etc. We
would be surprised if many of these renowned Cardiologists who are MD, MRCP (Lond.)
are not examiners for DM (Cardiology). Indeed, many of their students after
doing their MD in Medicine and after their post-graduation go for further
studies for the second post-graduation in DM (Cardiology) under their
direction.
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- 197 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.
For
the reasons stated, the appeals as well as the connected special leave
petitions must fail and are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
S.L.
Appeals & Petitions dismissed.
Back
