Skip to content


Dr. Arun Kumar Vashishth Vs. Principal, Lala Lajpat Rai Memorial Medical College, Meerut and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. Nos. 6428 and 10448 of 1984
Judge
Reported inAIR1985All188
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226; Medical Council Act, 1956 - Sections 33
AppellantDr. Arun Kumar Vashishth
RespondentPrincipal, Lala Lajpat Rai Memorial Medical College, Meerut and ors.
Appellant AdvocateM. Katju, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateStanding Counsel
DispositionPetitions allowed in part
Excerpt:
.....of india, section 33 of medical council act, 1956 - admission in orthopaedics department - six months housemanship in orthopaedic department and six months housemanship in allied department - leprosy and paediatrics are allied to medicine and orthopaedics allied to surgery. - held, admission in orthopaedics department is illegal. (ii) computation - section 33 of medical council act, 1956 and article 226 of constitution of india - candidate must have completed one year housemanship prior to the admission. - - vashishtha who failed to get admission in either of the two courses has filed writ petition no. gaur possessed better merit than dr. gaur possessed better academic records and as such according to the merit lists prepared by the selection committee they are entitled for..........dr. b. s. kashyap has done total one year's housemanship in three different subjects, 6 months-orthopaedics, 5 months -- 14 days -- rehabilitation and 18 days -- leprosy. dr. r. k. gaur has done six months' housemanship in orthopaedics and 6 months in leprosy while dr. narendra kumar has done 11 1/2 months' housemanship in orthopaedics and 15 days in surgery. orthopaedic is allied department of surgery while leprosy, paediatric and rehabilitation are allied departments of medicine and as such dr. b. s. kashyap, dr. r. k. gaur and dr. a. p. tripathi were not eligible for admission in any of the two courses in orthopaedics. although admission of dr. narendra kumar has also been challenged in the writ petition on the ground that he did not complete one year's housemanship but has.....
Judgment:

J.N. Dubey, J.

1. In these writ petitions validity of certain admissions made in Degree and Diploma courses in Orthopaedics in Lala Lajpat Rai Memorial Medical College, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the College) has been challenged.

20. On 20-12-1983applications were invited for admission in M.S. and Diploma course in Orthopaedics in the college. The petitioners who have passed M.B.B.S., examination from the college also applied for admission to both the courses. The Selection Committee after considering the applications of all the candidates prepared two separate merit lists for admission in M.S. and Diploma Courses in Orthopaedics as under :

M.S. (Orthopaedic)

1. Dr. Hardesh Kumar

2. ' Dinesh Kumar Verma

3. ' Narendra Kumar

4. ' Birendra Singh Kashyap

5. ' Rakesh Kumar Gaur. 6. ' Arun Kumar Vashishth.

DIPLOMA IN ORTHOPAEDIC

1. Dr. Hardesh Kumar

2. ' Mukesh Kumar Maheshwari

3. ' Dinesh Kumar Verma

4. ' Narendra Kumar

5. ' Subodh Kumar

6. ' Dinesh Kumar Agarwal

7. ' Birendra Singh Kashyap

8. ' H. K. Arora

9. ' R. K.Gaur

10. ' A. P.Tripathi

11. ' Arun Veer Singh

12. ' Peeyush Jain

13. ' Rajendra Kumar Soorma

14. ' Arun Kumar Vashistha.

3. Dr. A. K. Vashishtha who failed to get admission in either of the two courses has filed writ petition No. 6428 of 1984 challenging the validity of admission of Dr. B. G. Kashyap, Dr. R.K. Gaur, Dr. A. P. Tripathi and Dr. N. Kumar in Diploma courses in Orthopaedics on the ground that they did not possess requisite qualifications and as such were not entitled for being considered for admission and if they are excluded, the petitioner being the next candidate becomes automatically entitled for admission. According to him, admissions in post-graduate courses in all the medical college in the country are made on the basis of the criteria laid down by the Medical Council of India. According to the Clause (c) of the criteria a candidate must have done one year's housemanship prior to the admission to the post-graduate degree and diploma courses. Housemanship should preferably be for one year in the same subject or at least six months in the same Department and remaining six months in allied Department. Dr. B. S. Kashyap has done total one year's housemanship in three different subjects, 6 months-orthopaedics, 5 months -- 14 days -- Rehabilitation and 18 days -- Leprosy. Dr. R. K. Gaur has done six months' housemanship in orthopaedics and 6 months in Leprosy while Dr. Narendra Kumar has done 11 1/2 months' housemanship in Orthopaedics and 15 days in Surgery. Orthopaedic is allied Department of Surgery while Leprosy, Paediatric and Rehabilitation are allied Departments of Medicine and as such Dr. B. S. Kashyap, Dr. R. K. Gaur and Dr. A. P. Tripathi were not eligible for admission in any of the two courses in Orthopaedics. Although admission of Dr. Narendra Kumar has also been challenged in the writ petition on the ground that he did not complete one year's housemanship but has not been seriously challenged during arguments and rightly so because admittedly surgery is allied Department or Orthopaedics and there was no irregularity so far his admission is concerned.

4. Dr. B. S. Kashyap and Dr. R. K. Gaur filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10448 of 1984 claiming that they were entitled for admission in M.S. Orthopaedics but were illegally admitted in Diploma courses. It appears that one seat in M.S. (Orthopaedics) was lying vacant in the college and as such on 17-7-1984 this Court directed the Principal of the College to permit Dr. A. K. Vashishth to attend the M.S. course in Orthopaedics. Since Dr. B. S. Kashyap and Dr. R. K. Gaur possessed better merit than Dr. A. K. Vashishth they have stated their claim for admission in M.S. course in preference to him.

5. Both the State and the selected candidates have contested the claim of Dr. A. K. Vashishth on the ground that no illegality or irregularity was committed in selecting candidates for admission in M.S. and Diploma course in Orthopaedics. Their case is that Leprosy, Paediatrics and Rehabilitation are allied Departments of Orthopaedics and not to the Medicine as claimed. It has further been claimed that admissions in Medical Colleges are made on he basis of guidelines provided by the State Government under S. 28 of the U. P. State Universities Act and the recommendations of the Medical Council of India are not mandatory and as all these admissions were made according to the guide-lines provided by the State Government they cannot be declared invalid even if the selected candidates did not possess one year's housemanship calculated under Clause (c) of the criteria fixed by the Medical Council of India for such admissions. Dr. B. S. Kashyap has further justified his admission on the ground that even assuming that he had not completed one year housemanship within the meaning of Clause (o) on the date of application he had done so prior to the admission which was the requirement of that clause. He has also claimed that the State Government has issued notification directing the College to consider eleven months' housemanship equivalent to one year for the purposes of Clause (c) and, therefore, even if he had completed housemanship of only 11 months 14 days he was eligible for admission in the post-graduate and Diploma course in Orthopaedies. Although he has not filed the copy of the alleged notification of the State Government he has given a list of the candidates who were admitted in Degree and Diploma courses in the College on their completing only eleven months' house manship in the past.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7. Admittedly, Dr. B. S. Kashyap and Dr. R. K. Gaur possessed better academic records and as such according to the merit lists prepared by the Selection Committee they are entitled for admission in M.S. course in preference to Dr. A. K. Vashishth if their admission in Diploma course is upheld. Thus, the decision of Writ Petition No. 10448 of 1984 will depend upon the outcome of the other writ petition.

8. Now, we have to see as to whether Dr. B. S. Kashyap, Dr. K. K. Gaur and Dr. A. P. Tripathi possessed requisite qualifications for admission in Degree and Diploma courses in. Orthopaedics. The Medical Council of India has made certain recommendations on Postgraduate Medical Education which have been approved as 'Regulations' by the Government of India under S. 33 of the Medical Council Act. The criteria for selection of candidates for admission to post-graduate courses according to the recommendations is as under :--

(a) Students for post-graduate training should be selected strictly on merit judged on the basis of academic record in the undergraduate course. All selection for post-graduate studies should be conducted by the Universities.

(b) The candidates should have obtained full registration i.e., they must have completed satisfactorily one year of compulsory rotating internship after passing the final M.B.B.S. examination and must have full registration with the State Medical Council.

(c) They must subsequently have done one year's housemanship prior to admission to the post-graduate degree or diploma course. Housemanship should preferably be for one year in the same subject or at least six months in the same department and the remaining six months in an allied department provided that in departments like Radiology/ Anaesthesiology where generally very few house jobs are provided, the housemanship may be in General Medicine or/and in General Surgery. Alternatively

(i) Must have worked as a full-time postgraduate student in a manner equivalent to housemanship requirements, in the department concerned before taking up the post-graduate courses.

(ii) or worked in Stale Medical Services, Armed Forces Medical Services or other equivalent services of public undertakings, local bodies, etc. For a period of three years after full registration provided that one year of these three years is spent in a hospital which is approved for purposes of undergoing the compulsory rotating internship or in a command hospital, failing which the aforesaid period of three years would be increased to five years.

Provided that in case of service in Armed Forces, this period shall be in addition to one year of compulsory rotating internship required for purposes of obtaining the M.B.B.S. degree and full registration.'

9. Since these recommendations have been approved as Regulations under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act normally all the admissions in the post-graduate Medical Education in the country must be governed by these recommendations unless their applicability is specifically excluded by some other enactments. The claim of the State Government is that the Stale Government has issued notification under Section 28 of the U.P. State Universities Act and the admissions in the colleges have been strictly in accordance with the directions contained in the said notification. No copy of the alleged notification of the State Government has been filed and, therefore, it is not possible for us to ascertain the correctness of the claim made by the Stale Government that all the admissions in the College were made in accordance with the directions contained in the said notification. However, it appears that the principal of the College vide his letter No. S.1/4435 dated 20-7-1984 sought some clarification regarding allied subjects from the Medical Council of India in reply of which the Secretary of the Council intimated the principal of the College on 21-7-1984 (Annexure-3 to writ petition No. 10448 of 1984) that the matter regarding allied subjects was considered by the Council at its meeting held during 1979 and was of the opinion that recommendation of the Council regarding requirement of housemanship may continue and allied subjects for housemanship may be decided by the University. Subsequently, the Meerul University vide its letter dated 31-7-1984 (Annexure-RA-l in the aforesaid writ petition) informed the Principal of the College that the entire process of admission including the decision about allied subjects was within his jurisdiction and the University had never interfered with it. On the basis of these letters the learned Standing Counsel wants us to infer that the Medical Council of India itself has authorised the University of Meerut to take decision with respect to allied subjects for purposes of admission in post-graduate education and that the University in its turn authorised the principal of the College to do so and that once the principal of the College has decided to treat Leprosy, Paediatrics and Rehabilitation as allied departments to Orthopaedies it should be deemed to have been done in accordance with the directions of the Medical Council of India. In other words, the criteria contained in Clause (c) stands modified to this extent. We arc unable to accept this contention of the learned Standing Counsel inasmuch as the Authority to take decision with respect to allied subjects was given by the Medical Council of India to the University of Meerut and, therefore, if the University had issued certain directions in this regard the matter would have been different but in this case the University has simply intimated the Principal of the College that the entire process of admission including the decision about allied subjects was within his jurisdiction and that the University has never thlerfered with it, which cannot amount to laying down any guidance regarding allied subjects by the University as such. In our opinion, the recommedations of Medical Council of India on post-graduate medical education are applicable to the admissions to post-graduate courses in the college and, therefore, the validity of the admission of Dr. B. S. Kashyap, Dr. R. K. Gaur and Dr. A. P. Tripathi has to be tested on the basis of the criteria laid down by the Medical Council of India. It is noticeable that initially Dr. A. K. Vashishlha did not challenge in his petition that Rehabilitation was allied department of Orthopaedics but by means of a supplementary affidavit he has asserted that even Rehabilitation is an allied Department of Medicines and not of Orthopaedics.

10. However, a copy of the letter dated 9-11-1981 of the Secretary of the Medical Council of India has been filed as Annexure-SA-4 with the supplementary affidavit dated 30-10-1984 of Dr. R. S. Kashyap from which it appears that the Medical Council of India vide its resolution dated 17-10-1981 agreed for establishment of Rehabilitation Wings in Orthopaedics Department in the Medical Colleges. The resolution reads as under :--

'The post-graduate Committee agreed in principle about the establishment of rehabilitation wings alleged to the department of Orthopaedies in medical colleges as per the details received from the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare.'

It is in pursuance of this decision of the Medical Council of India thai the Rehabilitation Wings were established in Orthopaedics Department of various Medical Colleges, During arguments learned counsel for Sri A. K. Vashistha conceded that Rehabilitation is at lached to the Department of Orthopaedics but according to him, this was of no legal consequence. In other words, according to the learned counsel, the mere fact that the Rehabilitation was attached to the Department of Orthopaedics was not enough to hold that it was an allied subject of Orthopaedies. This contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted in view of the fact [hat in Clause (c) the Medical Council of India has used words 'allied department' and not words 'allied subject'. Accordingly, we hold that Rehabilitation is an allied Department of Orthopaedies and the period of housemanship in Rehabilitation would be treated as housemanship in the allied subjects.

11. Now, let us examine whether Leprosy and Paediatrics are allied departments of Orthopaedics. The learned counsel for the petitioner Dr. A. K. Vashistha has produced before us syllabus of Faculty of Medicines of Meerut University, Recommendations of Medical Council of India on post-graduate medical education, Minimum standard requirement for a medical college for admissions, Prospectus of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Instructions of National Board of Examinations, Rules pertaining to admissions in post-graduate courses in Lucknow, Bombay and Chandigarh University to show that Leprosy and Paediatrics were always treated as subjects of Medicine branch and not Surgery and has contended that as the Orthopaedics is the allied subject of Surgery naturally Leprosy and Paediatric were not allied subjects of Orthopaedics. From the material on record we are satisfied that even though neither the Medical Council of India nor the Meerut University has provided any guide-line for deciding the question of allied subjects, the Leprosy and Paediatrics are allied subjects, of Medicine and not Surgery and Orthopaedics is allied subjects of Orthopaedics (Surgery?). Since Dr. R. K. Gaur has completed six months in Paediatrics and Dr. A. P. Tripathi has done six months' housemanship in Orthopaedics and six months in Leprosy they did not fulfil the requisite qualification laid down in Clause (c) of the criteria by the Medical Council of India and were, therefore, not eligible for admission.

12. This brings us to the case of Dr. B. S. Kashyap who has done six months' housemanship in Orthopaedics, 5 months 14 days in Rehabilitation and 18 days in Leprosy on the date of making application for admission. As we have held that Rehabilitation is allied subject of Orthopaedics while Leprosy is not, only the housemanship done in Rehabilitation will be taken into consideration while computing the housemanship for the purposes of admission in M. S. and Diploma courses in Orthopaedics. Thus, on the date of application Dr. B. S. Kashyap had completed only 11 months 14 days' housemanship for the purposes of admission in post-graduate medical education and would not have been eligible for admission in any of the two courses in Orthopaedics if one year's housemanship was required to be completed on the date of admission or 11 months' housemanship was not considered equivalent to one year for purposes of such admission. Clause (c) provides that the candidate must have subsequently done one year's housemanship prior to the admission to the post-graduate degree or Diploma courses. It is not disputed that Dr. B. S. Kashyap had completed six months' housemanship in Orthopaedics and six months in Rahabilitation prior to the date of admission. The only thing remains to be decided is as to whether the requirement of one year's house-manship was to be seen on the date of admission or on the date of the application or some date fixed by the college for computing that period in terms and conditions for post-graduate admission. In the terms and conditions for, post-graduate admission issued by the Principal of the College, a copy of which has been filed as S.A.2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 30-10-1984 of Dr. Kashyap a candidate must have completed one year's housemanship on 20th Mar., 1984. The learned counsel for Dr. A. K. Vashishth contended that the condition contained in the terms and conditions issued by the principal was binding and, therefore, the material date for computing one year's housemanship was 20th March 1984 and not the date of admission as claimed by Dr. B. S. Kashyap. We have held above that recommendations of Medical Council of India are still applicable to the admissions in post-graduate courses in the college and, therefore, any direction issued by the principal of the College not in conformity with the criteria laid down by the Medical Council of India can have no binding force. When the Medical Council of India has provided that the candidate must have done one year's housemanship prior to the admission to the post-graduate Degree or Diploma courses the principal of the College has no authority to fix any prior date for computing the period of housemanship for the purposes of such admission. We have no doubt in our mind that 'must have done one year's housemanship prior to admission' in Clause (c) provide that the candidate must have completed one year's housemanship on the date of admission. This being so, Dr. B. S. Kashyap who had admittedly completed one year's housemanship for purposes of Clause (c) on the date of admission was quite eligible for admission in Degree and Diploma courses of Orthopaedics and the College did not commit any illegality or irregularity in granting him admission to the said course. Moreover, we find that several candidates having completed only 11 months' housemanship were granted admission in the College in the past. It is claimed by the learned Standing Counsel that it was done on the basis of some notification of the Government. Although the copy of the alleged notification has not been filed but it appears that the State Government had issued some such notification on the basis of which the students completing only 11 months' housemanship were granted admission in the past. Under S. 28 of the U.P. State Universities Act the State Government has been empowered to issue such directions and, therefore, the Government is quite competent to reduce the period of housemanship from one year to 11 months or laying down that 11 months' periodof housemanship would be treated as equivalent to one year's housemanship for the purposes of admission in post-graduate Degree and Diploma Courses. In our opinion, even if the Government has not issued such notification the admission of the petitioner to the said post is liable to be mentioned (maintained?) on the basis of longstanding practice of the University which has since been authorised by the Indian Medical Council to take its own decision with respect to allied subjects. On the findings recorded above the admission of Dr. R. K. Gaur and A. P. Tripathi to Diploma course in Orthopaedics deserves to be set aside and Dr. A. K. Vashisth being the next man in the merit list deserves admission in their place.

13. Admittedly, Dr. B. S. Kashyap possesses better academic record than Dr. Dr. R. K. Gaur and Dr. A. K. Vashishth and has also been placed higher in the merit list prepared by the selection committee and, therefore, he is entitled for admission in the M.S. course. In normal course we would have quashed the admission of Dr. R. K. Gaur and Dr. A. P. Tripathi and directed the College to admit Dr. A. K. Vashistha in their place in Diploma course in Orthopaedics, but, however, in view of the fact that, as informed by the learned counsel Dr. R. K. Gaur has left the college and has joined at some other place and that Dr. A. K. Vashisth can be granted relief by quashing one admission we are not inclined to quash the admission of Dr. A. K. Tripathi, more so when he has already completed about six months' study in that course and there is no other claimant for admission in the Diploma course of Orthopaedics.

14. In the result, both the writ petitions succeed and are partly allowed. The admission of Dr. R. K. Gaur is quashed and the college is directed to admit Dr. A. K. Vashistha in Diploma course in Orthopaedics and Dr. B. S. Kashyap in M. S. (Orthopaedics). However, we make no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //