Dr. Nandjee
Singh Vs. P.G. Medical Students Association & Ors [1993] INSC 291 (14 May 1993)
Sawant,
P.B. Sawant, P.B. Yogeshwar Dayal (J)
CITATION:
1993 AIR 2264 1993 SCR (3) 909 1993 SCC (3) 400 JT 1993 (3) 515 1993 SCALE
(2)985
ACT:
%
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136-Appeal-Whether
appellant appointed against a teaching post--Non-examination of question by
High Court-Positive presumption by High Court- Whether Supreme Court to decide
said question.
Constitution
of India, 1950 : Article 226-Writ by
Association against an individual-Individual dispute whether public interest
litigation.
Education-M.D.
(Medicine) Examination-Requirements appearance.
University-Examination-M.D.(Medicine)-Appearance
--Require- ments of.
HEAD NOTE:
The
appellant was a teacher in the Department of Biochemistry of Rajendra Medical College. He filed an application for his
registration as a student in M.D. The University forwarded the application to
the Principal of Rajendra Medical College. The Principal objected to
appellant's registration as he was not posted in any of the teaching posts in Rajendra Medical College. Though the appellant was attached
to the Department of Medicine, was a Biochemist attached to that Renal Unit
dealing with the subject of Biochemistry.
The
appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court for a direction tot he
University to permit him to submit his thesis in M.D. (Medicine) examination on
the ground that he was a teacher.
The
University took the stand that the appellant was not a teacher and he was not
eligible for training in M.D.
(General
Medicine).
The
High Court dismissed the appellants writ petition and held that he was not
entitled for admission to the examination in M.D. as he did not such it 910 his
thesis and did not produce a certificate of having undergone satisfactory
training. The High Court did not decide on the question whether he held a
teaching post or not.
The
appellant was granted permission to appear for M.D. (Medicine) examination
after the University was satisfied that the appellant was holding a teaching
post The respondent-Association filed a writ petition before the High Court
challenging the permission given to the appellant to appear for the said
examination, contending that he was not a teacher and that he did not undergo
the necessary training for 2 years and that he did not do housemanship in
General Medicine for one year.
The
High Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant did not
undergo training for 3 years prior to his application to appear for M.D.
(Medicine) examination.
In
this writ petition also the High Court did not decide whether the appellant was
holding a teaching post.
The
appellant filed this appeal by special leave against the High Court's judgment.
Allowing
the appeal, this Court
HELD :
1.1.
On account of the interim order passed by the High Court, the appellant
appeared for the examination. The High Court has, however, by the impugned
decision restrained the University from declaring his results in the examination.
(915-G)
1.2.
Since the High Court has not gone into the question as whether the appellant
was appointed against a teaching post and has proceeded on the footing that he
was appointed, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the said question.
(915-F)
2.1.
The facts of the-case would reveal that this was a dispute relating to an
individual and turned on the facts.
There
was no question of law involved in it. It is not understood how the
respondent-Association could convert an individual dispute into a public
interest litigation. (915- H)
2.2
Cases where what is strictly an individual dispute is sought to be 911
converted into a public interest litigation should not be encouraged. The
present proceeding is one of the kind.
(915-H)
3.1.
The requirement of the relevant regulation is that the candidate must have done
one year's housemanship prior to the admission to the Postgraduate degree in
the same subject in which he wants to appear for the examination or atleast six
months housemanship in the same Department and the remaining six months in the
allied Department. The period of training thus, shall be 3 years after full
registration including one year of the. housejob.(912-B)
3.2.
According to the rules, 4 years, (teaching experience in the College and the
Hospital (which is always combined. with practice in the Hospital) is
considered equivalent to one year's house-job experience. In the face of these
facts, it is difficult to understand the stand taken by the State Government in
the present proceedings. (916-D)
3. 3.
The University bad on the facts of the case accepted the contention of the
appellant that he had completed 3 years' training. It is not understood as to
what' state the State has in denying the said factual position. (916-B)
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2909 of 1993.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.1990 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.
1465 of 1989 (R).
S.B. Upadhyay
for the Appellant.
Uday Sinha,
S.K. Verma and Ranjit Kumar for the Respondents.
The
following Order of the Court was delivered:
Special
leave granted.
The
controversy in the present case is whether the appellant was qualified to
appear for the M.D. (General Medicine) Examination as a teacher candidates The
High Court by the impugned order has taken the view that he was not, on the
around that he had not completed 3 years training period including one year of
the house-job, prior to qualifying himself for appearing for the examination.
912
The respondents, P.G. Medical Students Association had challenged the
permission given to the appellant to appear for the said examination on two
rounds. The first ground was that he was not a teacher and the second ground
was that he had not undergone the necessary training for 2 years and had also
not done housemanship in General Medicine for one year. The requirement of the
relevant regulation is that the candidate must have done one year's housemanship
prior to the admission to the Post-graduate degree in the same subject in which
he wants to appear for the examination or at least six months housemanship in
the same Department and the remaining six months in the allied Department. The
period of training thus, shall be 3 years after full registration including one
year of the housejob.
The
appellant claimed that he was teacher in the Department of Biochemistry in the Rajendra
Medical College (R.M.C.) and filed an application for his registration as a
student in M.D. The University forwarded the application to the then Principal
of Rajendra Medical College-cum-Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Dr. C.J.K. Singh. He
objected to his registration on the ground that the appellant was not posted in
any of the teaching posts in medical college. The then Head of the Department
of Medicine, Dr. S. Sinha also wrote to Dr.
C.J.K.
Singh that the appellant though attached to the Department of Medicine, was a
Bio-chemist attached to the Renal Unit and dealt entirely with the subject of
Biochemistry.
The
appellant filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 755 of 1988 praying for
appropriate direction to the University to permit him to submit his thesis in
M.D. (Medicine) examination. The University contested his claim that he was a
teacher and took the stand that since he was not a teacher, he was not eligible
for training in M.D. (General Medicine). For this purpose, the University
relied upon the. letters of Dr. C.J.K. Singh and Dr. S. Sinha. The Court
dismissed the said petition on 23rd May, 1988
without deciding the issue as to whether the appellant held a teaching post but
recorded a finding that the appellant was not entitled for admission to the
examination in M.D. as he had not submitted his thesis and had also failed to
produce a certificate of having undergone satisfactory training.
The
High Court also held that the acceptance of the thesis was a pre-requisite for
appearing at the examination.
However,
thereafter the present petition was filed by the respondent Association when
the appellant was granted permission to appear for the said examination being
satisfied that the post which he was holding was a teaching post as pointed out
by the State Government. In this petition, the University supported the
appellant by asserting that the, appellant was appointed against a teaching
post 913 in the Department of Medicine. The High Court has again not decided
the point whether the appellant was appointed against a teaching post in the
Department of Medicine. For not deciding the point, the High Court has given an
additional reason, viz., that many persons who were in fact appointed as
teachers would be prejudicially affected since they would become junior to the
appellant and they were not before the Court. For the purposes of the disposal
of the writ petition, the High Court presumed that the appellant was teacher in
the Department of Medicine in the Rajendra Medical College. The Court has, however, made it clear that this
presumption would be confined to the present case only and the appellant would
not be entitled to claim any benefit on the basis of the said presumption. The
High Court has, however, allowed the respondents' petition only on the grounds
that the appellant had not undergone training for 3 years prior to his
application to appear for the said examination. In order to come to the said
conclusion, the High Court relied on the fact that although the petitioner was
registered with Dr. S.S. Prasad as a trainee on 6th February, 1986, he had not
undergone training with him and it was only from 4th February; 1988 onwards
that he had undergone the training with another Supervisor, viz., Dr. P.R.
Prasad. Hence, on the date he made the application for appearing in the
examination, he had not completed the required 3 years' training period. In
support of its finding that the appellant had not completed 2 years' training with
Dr. S.s. Prasad, the former Supervisor, the High Court has relied upon two
facts. The first is that Dr. S.S. Prasad had written to the University that
appellant had undergone no training under him. The second circumstance relied
upon is that the second Supervisor, viz., Dr. P.R. Prasad was not appointed as
appellant's Supervisor as per the suggestion of the Dean of the Faculty of
Medicine since respondent No. 7 to the petition who had recommended Dr. P.R.
Prasad was not the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the time of the
recommendation. Hence, according to the High Court even the training of the
appellant under Dr. P.R. Prasad was not a valid training The record shows that
admittedly the appellant was registered as a trainee under the former Supervisor,
Dr. S.S. Prasad on 6th February, 1986 and he continued to be the trainee under
him till 4th February, 1988 on which date he was changed as a Supervisor at the
request of the appellant.
In his
place Dr. P.R. Prasad was appointed as the appellant's Supervisor on 17th December, 1988. The appellant, thereafter
continued to be the trainee under Dr. P.R. Prasad from 19th December, 1988 to 3rd August, 1989.
Thus
the petitioner was registered for M.D. (General Medicine) examination of the
University on 6th February, 1986 and by the 3rd August, 1989 when he was due to
appear for the examination he had completed 3 years' training under the two
Supervisors.
914
Coming to the respondent-Association's contention that the earlier Supervisor,
Dr. S.S. Prasad had denied that the appellant had received any training under
him, the University has stated that for the purpose of training, the Supervisor
has nothing more to do than guide the candidate for writing thesis. But more
than that, the letter written by Dr. P.V.P. Sinha, the Principal of RMC and
Dean, Faculty of Medicines of the Ranchi University to the Registrar of the Ranchi University on 4th
July, 1989 speaks
volumes on the attitude adopted by Dr. S.S. Prasad towards the appellant. This
letter is Annexure-11 to the rejoinder of the appellant. The letter makes a
complaint that Dr. S.S. Prasad by bypassing the office of the Principal, RMC
had addressed directly to the Registrar of the University two letters on 4th
May and 3 1st May, 1989. The Principal then states that he examined the
original letter meaning thereby the letter dated 4th May, 1989 and the
connected matter and found that Dr. S.S. Prasad had been telling lie to the
University and trying to mislead and that is why he had sent the letter
directly to the University. Dr. Prasad had written another letter to the
University on 16th May, 1988 regarding the appellant and in that letter he had
written that the appellant had been prevented from doing research work
connected with his thesis. The Principal then proceeds to write that when he
asked Dr. Prasad in writing vide his letter dated 21st June, 1989 to give him
the letter of the Principal or the Dean or the University which had authorised
him to prevent the appellant-from doing his research work, Dr. Prasad failed to
produce any letter. Thus according to the Principal it became very clear that
Dr. Prasad had written the letter dated 16.5.1988 directly to the University to
harm the appellant's career. The Principal then proceeds to write to University
that he would like to bring to the attention of the University that Dr.Prasad
had signed the thesis and certificate of another doctor, viz., Dr. Ashok Kumar
Singh on 16.10.1984 when that doctor was registered as an M.D. student in
General Medicine only on 26.7.1984 and when Dr. Prasad was not his guide. It
was Dr. R.C.N. Sahai who named the guide for the said Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh.
The
Principal then writes that from the perusal of the records as well as from the
reply to the explanation sought by him from Dr. Prasad, it had become clear
that Dr. Prasad was not made the guide of Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh either by the
University or by the Dean or by the Principal and yet he had signed the thesis
of Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh barely after 3 months and 11 days of his registration.
The Principal then points out in that letter that a comparison of the two
events made it apparent that Dr. Prasad had favoured Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh by
violating all the norms statutes of the University and of the Medical Council
of India and that even after the University had appointed Dr. P.R. Prasad as
the guide of the appellant, Dr. S.S. Prasad was bent upon harming the career of
the appellant. The Principal then adds that there was no record in his office
to show that the appellant was ever suspended by the University for doing his
M.D. General Medicine. He had asked Dr. S.S. Prasad to produce any notification
of the University regarding the alleged 915 suspension and Dr. S.S. Prasad had
failed to do so. He then concludes the letter by stating that he would, in the
circumstances, recommend the University to consider the desirability of
removing Dr. S.S. Prasad from all examination work of the Ranchi University. It
is thus apparent that Dr. S.S. Prasad, the former Supervisor of the appellant
had become hostile to him and was apparently not cooperating with him in his
thesis. Yet the appellant had proceeded to write a thesis and when it became
unbearable, he requested for the change of his Supervisor on 4th February, 1988 pursuant to which the new Supervisor,
Dr. P.R. Prasad was appointed on 17th December, 1988. However, till the new Supervisor
was appointed on 17th
December, 1988, he
continued to be registered with Dr. S.S. Prasad and there is no dispute that
under the new Supervisor, viz., Dr. P.R. Prasad he completed his training from
17th December, 1988 to 4th August, 1989. There is further no dispute that the
appellant submitted his thesis prior to the examination.
As
regard the qualification of the 7th respondent to make the appointment of Dr.
P.R. Prasad as the guide, although the record before us does not show as to who
the 7th respondent was, we take it that it is the then Principal, Dr. P.V.P. Sinha
who was probably added later as the 7th respondent to the writ petition to whom
the High Court has referred to in its judgment. It is asserted from the Bar on
behalf of the appellant that Dr. P.V.P. Sin ha was both the Principal and the
Dean of the Faculty of Medicine of the University from a date much prior to 17th December, 1988.
That
statement is not controverted nor does the counter filed by the 1st Respondent
make any such point. If that is so, then on the date that Dr. P.R. Prasad was
appointed as a Supervisor he was so appointed by a duly qualified person.
Since
the High Court has not one into the question as to whether the appellant was
appointed against a teaching post and has proceeded on the footing that he was
so appointed.
it is
not necessary for us to go into the said question.
The
appellant was thus fully qualified for appearing in the said examination and in
fact on account of the interim orders passed by the High Court he has appeared
for the examination. The High Court has, however, by the impugned decision
restrained the University from declaring his results in the examination.
The
facts narrated above would reveal that this was a dispute relating to an
individual and turned on the facts.
There
was no question of law involved in it. We have, therefore, not understood how
the respondent-Association could convert an individual dispute into a public
interest litigation. We are of the view that cases where what is strictly an
individual dispute is sought to be converted into a public interest litigation
should not be encouraged.
The
present proceeding is one of the 916 kind. The learned counsel appearing, for
the respondent- State wanted to support the respondent-Association. We did not
think it necessary to hear the State since the dispute was essentially with
regard to the interpretation of the facts relating to the training of an individual
medical officer, viz., the appellant. The University had on the facts of the
case accepted the contention of the appellant that he had completed 3 years'
training. We have not been able to understand as to what stake the State has in
denying the said factual position.
It
must be remembered in this connection that the State Government itself by its
letter of 17th September, 1984 written to the Principal, RMC and had asserted
that the post which the appellant was holding, viz., that of Bio-chemist in the
Artificial Kidney Unit of RM College and Hospital, was a teaching post and that
the appellant was posted to that post since 12th February, 1982. The letter
further proceeded to state that the Principal and the Head of the Department of
Medicine of RM College and Hospital has also given written certificate that the
appellant was posted on a teaching post and therefore his teaching experience
would be counted with the Kidney Unit. A request was, therefore, made in the
letter that the appellant's application for his registration as M.D. General
Medicine candidate [Teacher] be forwarded to the University and further action
in that regard be intimated to the Regional Additional Commissioner-
cum-Principal Secretary. There is no dispute further that according to the
rules, 4 years teaching experience in the College and the Hospital [which is
always combined with practice in the Hospital] is considered equivalent to one
year's house-job experience. It the face of these facts, it is difficult to
understand the stand taken by the State Government in the present proceedings.
There is no doubt in our mind that some forces are at work to obstruct the
appellant's career on one ground or the other. The State Government should not
become a party to this came.
In the
circumstances, we allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the High Court
and hold that the appellant was qualified to appear for the M.D. (General
Medicine) examination as a teacher candidate. Hence, we direct the University
to declare his results in M.D. (General Medicine) examination for which he has
appeared, forthwith. There will be no order as to costs.
VPR
Appeal allowed.
Back