Skip to content


Dr. Dharmendra Kishore Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 242 of 1981
Judge
Reported in1985WLN(UC)215
AppellantDr. Dharmendra Kishore Sharma
RespondentState of Rajasthan and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
medical council act, 1956 - section 11 and statement of objects and reasons--clause (d)--medical council of india maintaining standard in medical education and providing guidance to all universities in india--held, it cannot be said that with holding recognition by it is not relevant;the medical council of india is a body which is primarily concerned in maintenance of the standard of post graduate medical education in india and to provide guidance to the universities all over the country. therefore, it cannot be said that recognition or with holding of the recognition of the post graduate degrees of the various universities all over the country is not relevant.;(b) rajasthan medical services (collegiate branch) rules, 1962 - rule 12--teachers in medical colleges to possess requisite..........a recognition granted by the government of india. secondly he has submitted that section 21 of the indian medical council act, 1956 (here in after referred to as the act) is only for a limited purpose for putting the degrees in the schedule and he has submitted that recognition or non-recognition of the degrees have no bearing for appointment of the persons in the medical colleges. it has further been submitted that the petitioner obtained the degree at the time when the qualification was temporarily recognised and if it has not been recognised later on then person can not be made to suffer. the learned counsel has further submitted that the recognition of degree is purely a fortutious circumstance and it should not come in the way of the petitioner for appointment in rajasthan. he has.....
Judgment:

Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order Annexure-1, whereby the petitioner has been found to be ineligible for the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine.

2. The petitioner obtained his post graduate degree in Forensic Medicine from the Lucknow University in December, 1978. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine through a Central Selection Committee on temporary basis. The post of Lecturers in Forensic Medicine were advertised by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (here in after referred as the Commission). In pursuance of this the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine and the Commission after examining his qualifications informed the petitioner vide Annexure 1 that since the post graduate degree recognised by the Lucknow University has not been recognized by the Medical Council of India, therefore, he is not eligible for the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine.

3. The petitioner has filed communication dated 2nd December, 1977 issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, in which it has been mentioned that the post graduate degree of Forensic Medicine awarded by the Lucknow University has been recognized for the period of one year only subject to fulfilling the various recommendations suggested by the Medical Council of India in the inspection report. It was clearly mentioned that the recognition is only temporarily for one year. In this back ground the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Exbt. 2 is a recognition granted by the Government of India. Secondly he has submitted that Section 21 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (here in after referred to as the Act) is only for a limited purpose for putting the degrees in the Schedule and he has submitted that recognition or non-recognition of the degrees have no bearing for appointment of the persons in the Medical Colleges. It has further been submitted that the petitioner obtained the degree at the time when the qualification was temporarily recognised and if it has not been recognised later on then person can not be made to suffer. The learned counsel has further submitted that the recognition of degree is purely a fortutious circumstance and it should not come in the way of the petitioner for appointment in Rajasthan. He has challenged the validity of Ordinance 65 of University of Rajasthan. It has been contended that the Ordinance 65 of Rajasthan University is discriminatory because that the degrees imparted by the University of Rajasthan are not required to be recognized by the Medical Council of India whereas the degrees granted by the other Universities are required recognition of the Medical Council of India.

4. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents, and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission has taken the position that since the condition of Service of lecturers in Medical Colleges is governed by the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 ('hereinafter referred to as the Rules'.) Rule 13 of the Rules lays down the academic and technical qualifications. Rule 12 says that the incumbents shall possess such academic and technical qualifications and experience as laid down from time to time by the Rajasthan University for teaching staff in Medical College. The Rajasthan University has laid down the qualifications in the Hand Book of University of Rajasthan Volume I, Part II. Ordinance 65 and Chapter VII deals with the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmaceutics. Clause 3 of Chapter VII lays down that all the teachers in Medical Colleges should possess the requisite post graduate qualifications in the respective subjects of the University of Rajasthan and that in case of post graduate qualifications of other Universities and Statutory bodies, these must be recognized by the Medical Council of India. The contention of the respondent is that in view of the qualifications laid down by the Rules petitioner's post graduate qualification has not been recognized, therefore, the Public Service Commission has no choice except to reject the candidature of the petitioner being ineligible.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. I am of the view that in view of the Act and the Rules the petitioner is not eligible, therefore, the decision of the Commission cannot be said to be bad or illegal.

6. In regard to first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of Exbt. 2 that the temporary recognition granted by the Medical Council of India should be deemed to be a regular recognition by the Medical Council of India is not correct. In this connection I would like to refer to the aims and objects of the Medical Council of India Act. The main objects indicated in the Act was to recognize certain degrees and permission to persons to practice in this profession in India. So far as we are concerned the present case is governed by Clause (d) of the Statement of Objects and Reasons. This clause deals with to provide for the formation of a Committee of post graduate Medical Education for the purpose of assisting the Medical Council of India to prescribe standards of post graduate medical education for the guidance of Universities and to advise Universities in the matter of securing uniform standards for post graduate medical education through out India. Clause (d) is reproduced as under:

(d) to provide for the formation of a Committee of post graduate to Medical Education for the purpose of assisting the Medical Council of India to prescribe standards of post graduate medical education for the guidance of Universities and to advise Universities in the matter of securing uniform standards for the post-graduate recognized medical qualifications.

7. Thus, the Medical Council of India is a body which is primarily concerned in maintenance of the standard of post graduate medical education in India and to provide guidance to the Universities all over the Country. Therefore it cannot be said that recognition or With holding of the recognition of the post graduate degrees of the various Universities all over the country is not relevant. The Medical Council of India has to follow the procedure as contained in the Act for recognising certain degrees by sending inspection team which evaluate the teaching standard in those Universities. If the teaching standard of these degrees in the Universities is not found to be of the standard they can with hold the recognition. The idea behind with holding of recognition of degrees granted by such University, is that, that University's teaching is not of a standard and therefore degree cannot be said to be of such academic excellence so as to be recognized. It is with this intention it forces Universities that they must improve their standard and bring it to the level of a standard desired by the Medical Council of India for the benefit of the public at large. In the present case a perusal of Exbt. 2 clearly shows that the inspection team which inspected the University did not find the teaching level upto standard therefore they have only granted a temporary recognition for a period of one year expecting that the University shall improve and bring their teaching standard to a high standard so as to merit the recognition by the Medical Council of India. In this connection I further asked Mr. Dave, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate to make an enquiry from the Public Service Commission that after 1977 perhaps the Medical Council of India might have recognized the degree. Mr. Dave has filed a communication from the Secretary Medical Council of India to the Secretary Public Service Commission dated 11-3-1981, it clearly says that the degree granted by the University of Lucknow has not been recognised by Medical Council of India. The said communication is reproduced herewith:

With reference to your letter No. F. 7(27)R(B) 78-79/21109, dated the 26th February, 1981 on the subject noted, above, I am to state that M.D. (Forensic Medicine) qualification granted by Lucknow University is not a recognized medical qualification for purposes of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

8. Thus, it is clear that upto 1981 the Medical Council of India has not recognized the degree granted by the Lucknow University. I also granted time to learned counsel for the petitioner to make an enquiry from the Medical Council of India because as from the information available with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission upto 1981 this degree has not been recognized. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute this aspect of the matter and he has not brought to my notice any communication that whether the Medical Council of India has recognized the degree till this date or not. Thus, it appears that since the competent body like Medical Council of India did not find the post graduate degree of the Lucknow University of a standard and as such the same has not been recognized by them till this date therefore the construction put by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Exbt. 2 should be treated as a recognition is without any merit and it is rejected.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that reference to Medical Council of India is not relevant because the purpose Under Section 11 is to place those degrees in the Schedule. I am afraid this contention of the learned counsel is not sustainable. Section 11 of the Act clearly deals with the recognition of the degrees. Section 11 is reproduced as under:

Recognition of Medical qualifications granted by Universities or medical institutions in India.--(1) The Medical qualifications granted by any University or medical institution in India which are included in the First Schedule shall be recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of this Act.

(2) Any University or Medical Institution in India which grants a medical qualification not included in the First Schedule may apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognized, and the Central Government, after consulting the Council, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the First Schedule so as to include such qualification therein, and any such notification may also direct that an entry shall be made in the last column of the First Schedule against such medical qualification declaring that it shall be a recognised medical qualification only when granted after a special date.

10. A perusal of Section 11 would show that the only degrees which are recognized by the Medical Council are placed in the schedule The Medical Council of India recognized the degrees and thereafter those degrees are placed in the schedule by bringing the necessary amendments in the schedule by the Government of India. Thus Section 11 of the Act lays down that the degrees recognized by the Medical Council of India will alone be placed in the schedule appended to this Act. It cannot be said that the placing of degrees in the schedule is only a mechanical process. The learned counsel has also submitted that recognition of degrees by the Medical Council of India is not necessary for appointment of incumbents to the Medical Colleges in Rajasthan. As I have already mentioned above that the recognition and non-recognition of the degrees was entrusted to Medical Council of India & which is a National Body, which examines the teaching standard in the concerned University in order to bring uniformity in the standard all over the country. In the present case the appointment is to be made in the Medical College in Rajasthan and we cannot take risk of appointing a person whose degree has not been recognized by the Medical Council, this will be hazardous to public life because the person who himself is not well equipped with the academic excellence how he will be able to impart proper teaching to students who in turn will go out in the field. Thus I am also not impressed by this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this connection I may also refer to another argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that recognition is purely a fortutious circumstance. I am afraid this argument is also without any merit. It is not a fortutious circumstance but it is a condition precedent for appointment as required by the rules. As already mentioned above that Rule 12 lays down that the candidate for direct recruitment to the post shall possess such academic and technical qualifications and experience as are laid down by the Rajasthan University. Rule 12 of the Rules is reproduced as under:

12. Academic and Technical qualifications : The candidates for direct recruitment to the posts specified in Part A, B and C of the Schedule shall possess such academic and technical qualifications and experience as is laid down, from time to time, by the Rajasthan University for the teaching staff in Medical Colleges.

11. According to this Rule the Rajasthan University who has to see and decide whether the degrees obtained from a particular University is of standard or not. The Rajasthan University has framed Ordinance 65 and the relevant portion of this Ordinance which is relevant for the purpose of deciding this case is reproduced as under:

3. All the teachers in Medical Colleges except Registrars and Demonstrators must possess the requisite post graduate qualification in their respective subjects of the University of Rajasthan. In the case of Post Graduate qualifications of other Universities and Statutory bodies, these must be recognised by the Medical Council of India.

12. This clearly says that all the teachers in Medical Colleges must possess the requisite post graduate qualification in their respective subjects of the University of Rajasthan and in the case of Post Graduate qualification of other Universities and statutory bodies these must be recognised by the Medical Council of India. The Medical Council of India in his turn has not recognised this qualification. Thus it cannot be said that it is fortutious circumstance, this is necessary qualification for appointment in the Medical Colleges in Rajasthan.

13. The Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that he has obtained a degree at the time when it was recognised and later on if it has not been recognised then the degree obtained by the incumbent cannot be de-recognised. I am afraid this submission of the learned counsel is also deviod of any force. Exbt. 2 clearly says that it is only recognized for a period of one year subject to difficulties pointed out by them are rectified and that the recognition was purely contingent and it cannot be said that the Medical Council of India has recognised it as a regular recognition. Exbt. 2 is itself ephemeral in nature and that cannot benefit the petitioner for the purpose of full recognition. The petitioner obtained the degree in 1978 and upto 1977 the Inspectors were not satisfied with the academic standard therefore they granted recognition upto 1977 and directed them to complete the difficulties pointed out by them. But the Medical Council of India has not recognised the degree till this date therefore Exbt.2 cannot be deemed to be a recognition. The contention raised by the petitioner is not sustainable and it is rejected.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further challenged the validity of Section 65 on the ground that it is discriminatory because it insists for recognition of the degrees granted by the other Universities whereas it does not require any recognition of the degree granted by the University of Rajasthan. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of force. There is no question of discrimination involved in the present case. The candidate has to seek appointment in Rajasthan and the Rule says that the qualifications will have to be laid down by the University of Rajasthan, it is the University of Rajasthan which has to lay down the academic qualifications for appointment in the Medical Colleges run by the University of Rajasthan. To say that University of Rajasthan has not recognized its own degree is nothing but superfluous. The University of Rajasthan is acting as Custodian for the Colleges in Rajasthan and the degrees granted by the University cannot be said that they should further recognize their own degrees. It is implicit that the Rajasthan University grants a degree which should be necessarily of the standard for the teaching purpose in Rajasthan. It is only when the degrees are obtained from the other Universities other than Rajasthan and the Rajasthan University is not aware of the teaching standard of the other Universities therefore they rely on the recognition granted by a higher National Body like the Medical Council of India. As I have already mentioned above that the Medical Council of India after necessary examination recognised the degrees. Therefore it is safer to accept the verdict of the National Body like Medical Council of India. It is not the case of the petitioner that the degrees imparted by the University of Rajasthan has not been recognised by the Medical Council of India. Thus, the contention of discrimination on the basis of Article 14 is also without any force and the same is rejected.

15. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the fag end of the arguments moved an application for impleading the Medical Council of India as a party. But this application is extremely belated and it cannot be entertained at this stage, therefore it is rejected.

16. In view of my finding that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission has rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


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