COL. IVS GAHLOT vs. UNION OF INDIA .

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8047 Of 2018 (@ C.A.Diary No.34810/2015) COL. IVS GAHLOT   ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.     ...RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. This   appeal   has   been   filed   questioning   the judgment dated 20.07.2015 of Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal   Bench,   Delhi   by   which   O.A.   No.   428/2013 filed   by   the   appellant   has   been   dismissed.   The appellant   was   commissioned   in   the   army   in   Armed Forces   Medical   Services   (AFMC)   on   06.04.1984, received his promotion to the rank of Colonel with effect from 01.01.2007. On 15.11.2011 the appellant was considered for promotion to the rank of Brigadier 2 by   Promotion   Board   (Medical)   but   could   not   be selected   for   promotion.   Appellant   had   filed   a statutory complaint against the non­promotion by the Board.   The   competent   authority   duly   examined   the statutory complaint and by decision dated 08.04.2013 granted partial redress by  expunsion  of the entire assessment  of  the  SRO  in   CR  2010.  On  19.06.2013, appellant   was   considered   for   promotion   by   Review Promotion Board (Medical) but could not be selected. Being   aggrieved   by   non­promotion,   appellant   filed O.A.No.428/2013. The O.A. has been dismissed by the Armed Forces Tribunal vide judgment dated 20.07.2015 aggrieved   by   said   judgment   this   appeal   has   been filed. 2. The   appellant's   case   before   the   Tribunal   was that in his consideration for promotion he was denied marks   for   Ph.D.   degree   in   Anthropology   (Science) awarded to him by Berhampur University in 1998. He further questions non granting of any mark for his Post   Graduate   training   qualification   obtained   from G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur and further no marks 3 were   awarded   on   his   Master   degree   in   Personnel Management in 2005 obtained from Pune University. The Tribunal although accepted the claim of grant of mark for   Master   degree   in   Personnel   Management   but rejected the claim of the appellant for grant of any mark   for   Ph.D.   degree   as   well   as   Post   Graduate training in Pediatrics.  3. Shri Yashank P. Adhyaru, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant contends that the Ph.D. degree   awarded   by   Berhampur   University,   which university was competent to award Ph.D. degree, was fully entitled to be awarded marks by Promotion Board (Medical). He submits that the grant of Ph.D. degree was   not   dependent   on   any   recognition   by   Medical Council   of   India.   Relying   on   a   letter   dated 15.12.2017  addressed  by Government  of  India to  the Director (Medical), Central Organisation ECHS, Delhi Cantt.,   where   it   has   been   clarified   that   Medical Council   of   India   has   informed   that   recognition   of Ph.D.   degree   does   not   come   under   the   purview   of Medical Council of India, it is submitted that the 4 denial   of   marks   to   the   appellant   was   illegal.   He further submits that Post Graduate training obtained from   a   recognised   medical   institution   by   the appellant was also entitled to be awarded marks. He further submits that the promotion policy which was earlier issued in the year 2004 could not have been reviewed   before   five   years   as   was   contemplated   by policy dated 14.01.2004. The amendment of policy by subsequent policy dated 22.05.2006 was not valid. He submits that had the appellant been granted the marks by   Promotion   Board   (Medical)   on   the   aforesaid   two counts he would have surely been promoted to the rank of   Brigadier.   Non   promotion   had   adversely   affected him which needs to be redressed by this Court. 4. Learned   counsel   appearing   for   Union   of   India refuting   the   above   submission   contends   that   Ph.D. degree obtained by appellant by Berhampur University is not recognised by Medical Council of India as per Medical Council of India Act, 1956, hence, no error has been committed by the Promotion Board (Medical) 5 in not rewarding any marks to the appellant. It is further   contended   that   the   Post   Graduate   Training which is relied by the appellant is also not training of  any  integrated  course  obtained  by  the  appellant after   taking   study   leave,   nor   any   certificate   of passing   the   training   course   has   been   filed   by   the appellant to make him eligible to award of any mark on   the   Post   Graduate   training.   He   submits   that promotion policy can be changed from time to time and there was no error in modification of the promotion policy in the year 2006. 5. We   have   considered   the   submissions   of   the learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and   perused   the records. 6. The   right   to   be   considered   for   promotion   in accordance with the rules for promotion is right of every officer and employee. In the present case there is   no   denial   that   appellant   was   considered   by Promotion   Board   (Medical)   on   15.11.2011   and 6 thereafter again by Review Promotion Board (Medical) on 19.06.2013. Appellant's case is that had he been granted one mark each for the Ph.D. degree and Post Graduation   training   course,   he   could   have   been definitely in the list of promoted officer and denial of marks on aforesaid two counts was illegal.   The Tribunal committed error in not considering the above claim in accordance with law. 7. We need to first consider the promotion policy under which the appellant's claim was considered. The consideration of each officer has to be in accordance with   the   promotion   policy   as   in   existence   and applicable   to   Armed   Forces   Officers   (Medical).   The promotion   policy   dated   14.01.2004   is   brought   on record as Annexure A­5. 8. In   the   present   case,   we   are   concerned   with paragraphs   11,   12   and   last   line   of   paragraph   18. Paragraph   11   deals   with   allocation   of   marks   on different qualifications. Two year full time training program is mentioned as item No.(d) in table of the 7 qualifications. It is useful to extract the aforesaid item No.(d) of the aforesaid table: “Qualifications:   Officers   in   possession of the following academic will be awarded marks, as mentioned against each:­

” 9. Paragraph   12   refers   to   various   academic achievements   which   includes   Doctor   of Philosophy(Ph.D.) which is to the following effect: “12. Marks will be awarded for possessing any one of the academic achievements as given below:­ (a) Master of Chirurgery(M.Ch.)        ­3 (b) Doctorate in Medicine(DM)          ­3 (c) Doctor of Philosophy(Ph.D)         ­3 (d) Diplomate of National  Board       ­3    (DNB)(Super­Speciality subject)  (e) Two years training during study    ­3   leave in a specialized field 8   of medical sciences/certificate        of training from an institute/    university recognized by a    statutory body. Note: ­ If an officer is having more than one   of   the   above­mentioned qualifications,   marks   for   only   one qualification will be credited.” 10. The above policy was issued on 14.01.2004 and in paragraph   18   following   was   stipulated   "the   policy will be reviewed after five years". 11. The   above   policy   was   amended   by   Order   dated 22.05.2006   heading   of   which   itself   mentioned th "amendment   to   promotion   policy   dated   14   January 2004:AFMS Officers.” 12. Amendments   were   made   in   paragraph   11   and paragraph 12 which are relevant in the present case. For   existing   paragraph   11,   new   paragraph   11   was substituted   which   provided   in   clause   (d)   that   for "two­year   full   time   structured   training   program during study leave in India/Abroad in a medical field 9 from   an   institution/university   recognized   by   a statutory   body,   one   mark   shall   be   allocated.   For existing paragraph 12, new paragraph was substituted which is to the following effect: “12. Officers in possession of any one of the following academic achievements will be awarded one (1) mark. (a)   Master   of   Chirugury(M.Ch)   recognized   by MCI (b)   Doctorate   in   Medicine(DM)   recognized   by MCI (c)   Doctor   of   Philosphy(Ph.D)   recognized   by MCI  (d) Diplomate of National Board(DNB)       (Super­speciality subject)” 13. At   the   outset,   we   may   consider   the   submission raised by the appellant that since the policy dated 14.01.2004   contemplated   that   the   policy   will   be reviewed after five years, there was no occasion for the review of the policy after two years only. There cannot be any dispute that it is the authority of the employer to frame promotion policy for promotion of its   officers   and   employees.   When   an   employer   has power to frame policy it has inherent power to change 10 the policy from time to time. This Court in   Hardev Singh Vs. Union of India and another , ( 2011) 10 SCC 121  laid down that it is always open to an employer to change its policy in relation to giving promotion to the employees. The above case was also a case of promotion of officers of Indian Army. A new promotion policy dated 31.12.2008 with regard to promotion was issued changing the criteria for promotion where in place of value judgment weightage were to be given on different   aspects,   repelling   the   challenge   to   new policy following was laid down in paragraphs 25 & 26, which is to the following effect: “25. In our opinion, it is always open to an   employer   to   change   its   policy   in relation   to   giving   promotion   to   the employees. This Court would normally not interfere   in   such   policy   decisions.   We would like to quote the decision of this Court   in   Virender   S.Hooda   Vs.   State   of   where   this Haryana,   (1999)   3   SCC   696 Court had held in para 4 of the judgment that:   "4....When a policy has been declared by   the   State   as   to   the   manner   of filling up the post and that policy is declared   in   terms   of   rules   and instructions   issued   to   the   Public Service   Commission   from   time   to   time 11 and so long as these instructions are not   contrary   to   the   rules,   the respondents ought to follow the same.” 26.Similarly,   in   Balco   Employees'   Union Vs. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333   it has been held that a court cannot strike down   a   policy   decision   taken   by   the Government   merely   because   it   feels   that another policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. It is not within the domain of the court to weigh the pros and cons of the policy or to test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition.” 14. The stipulation in the  policy dated 14.01.2004 that policy will be reviewed after five years was in no   manner   a   fetter   on   right   of   the   Government   to review the policy as and when occasion arose. There was no statutory restriction on the Government from reviewing the policy even before five years. We fully approve   the   view   of   the   Tribunal   that   the   policy dated 14.01.2004 could have rightly been amended in the year 2006. 15. Furthermore,   the   earlier   policy   was   issued   on 14.01.2004 and in accordance with the appellant, it could   have   been   reviewed   only   after   five   years. 12 Admittedly   the   appellant   came   for   consideration   by the   Promotion   Board   on   15.11.2011   i.e.   much   after five   years   from   the   issue   of   the   policy   on 14.01.2004. At the time when appellant was considered the   amendment   dated   22.05.2006   was   in   force.   An officer has to be considered in accordance with the policy as prevalent at the time of his consideration. Hence, we do not find any error in consideration of the claim of the appellant as per the amended policy dated 22.05.2006. 16. Now, we come to the claim of the appellant on the basis   of   Ph.D.   degree   obtained   from   Berhampur University   in   Anthropology   (Science).   Berhampur University   like   any   other   university   as   per University   Grants   Commission   Act,   1956   was   fully competent   to   institute   any   degree   including   Ph.D. degree. In the policy which was issued on 14.01.2004, on   any   Ph.D.   degree   a   candidate   was   eligible   for grant of three marks. Amendment made by Order dated 22.05.2006   the   eligibility   has   been   restricted   to "Doctor   of   Philosophy(Ph.D.)   recognised   by   Medical 13 Council of India". No exception can be taken to the amendment   by   which   only   those   Ph.D.   degrees   are eligible for one mark which are recognised by Medical Council   of   India.     There   is   a   rational   for restricting the award of marks only on those Ph.D. degrees which are recognised by the Medical Council of   India.     Medical   Council   of   India   recognises medical degrees awarded by different universities and institutions under the Medical Council of India Act, 1956.   The Promotion Policy dated 22.05.2006 is for promoting officers belonging to Armed Forces Medical Services (AFMS), hence restricting the award of marks to those Ph.D., which have been recognised by Medical Council of India has object and purpose.     17. Learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that the Medical Council of India does not recognise any Ph.D. degree for which he has placed reliance on the   letter   dated   15.12.2017   addressed   by   the Government   of   India,   Ministry   of   Health   &   Family Welfare   to   the   Director   (Medical),   Central Organisation   ECHS,   Delhi   Cantt.   This   Court   on 14 06.04.2018   directed   the   respondent   to   obtain instructions   with   regard   to   the   aforesaid   letter dated   15.12.2017.   By   letter   dated   15.12.2017 addressed to the appellant, a copy of reply received from  the  Medical  Council  of India  dated 07.12.2017 was forwarded. A Joint Secretary to Medical Council of India issued the letter dated 07.12.2017 which is to the following effect: “The Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi Kind   Atten:­Sh.D.V.K.Rao,   Under Secretary(ME­I) Subject:  Recognition   of   Ph.D.   Degree ­request of Col. Indra Veer Singh Gahlot – Regarding Sir,    Please   refer   to   your   letter No.Z.20015/15/2015­ME­I(FST143472)   dated 01.11.2017, on the subject noted above.          In this regard, this is to inform you   that   the   matter   with   regard   to recognition of Ph.D. Degree does not come under the purview of Medical Council of India.                          Yours faithfully Sd/­x­x­x­x­x 15 (Dr. Rajendra Wabale) Joint Secretary” 18. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Section 11 of the   Medical   Council   of   India   Act   pertains   to recognition   of   medical   qualifications   granted   by universities   or   medical   institutions   in   India. Section 11 is as follows: “ 11.Recognition   of   medical qualifications   granted   by   Universities or medical institutions in India.­ (1) The medical qualifications granted by any   University   or   medical   insitution   in India   which   are   included   in   the   First Schedule   shall   be   recognised   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 recognised,   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 16 a   recognised   medical   qualification   only when granted after a specified date.” 19. Section   11   of   the   Act   refers   to   the   First Schedule.   The   heading   of   the   First   Schedule   is "recognized   medical   qualifications   granted   by universities or medical institutions in India". The First Schedule contains list of various universities or   medical   institutions   of   India   which   contains   a column "recognised medical qualifications". Berhampur University is also one of the universities mentioned in the Schedule. The perusal of Schedule A indicates that   although   various   medical   degrees   have   been mentioned   in   the   column   "recognised   medical qualifications"   but   qualification   of   Ph.D.   in Anthropology(Science)   is   not   included   in   the recognised   medical   qualifications   for   Berhampur University.  20. Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the letter  dated  15.12.2017 read  with  letter  dated 07.12.2017 of the Medical Council of India contends 17 that   since   Medical   Council   of   India   does   not recognise   Ph.D.   Degree,   Ph.D.   Degree   awarded   by Berhampur   University   could   not   have   been   ignored. Section 11 of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956, as noticed above, provides for recognition of medical qualifications   granted   by   universities   or   medical institutions in India in First Schedule to the Act contains   list   of   universities   and   medical institutions. Berhampur University is also one of the universities,   which   finds   place   in   the   First Schedule.   Various   medical   courses   of   Berhampur University find place in the First Schedule but there is   no   mention   of   any   Ph.D.   degree.     The   list   of recognised medical courses of Berhampur University is as follows:­

18

19

20

21. Whereas   with   regard   to   various   medical institutions   like   All   India   Institute   of   Medical Sciences   and   Sree   Chitra   Thirunal   Institute   for Medical   Science   and   Technology,   Thiruvananthapura, there are mention of various Ph.D. courses.   It is useful   to   refer   to   relevant   extract   from   First Schedule   with   regard   to   the   few   Ph.D.   courses recognised in All India Institute of Medical Sciences and   Sree   Chitra   Thirunal   Institute   for   Medical Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapura, which are as follows:­ 21

22.  There being Ph.D. degree courses recognized for 22 medical   institutions   in   the   First   Schedule   of   the Medical Council of India Act, 1956, we cannot find any fault in the restriction imposed by policy dated 22.05.2006   restricting   award   of   marks   only   to   the Ph.D. degrees recognized by Medical Council of India. Coming to the letter dated 15.12.2017 which in turn refers   to   the   letter   dated   07.12.2017   of   Medical Council   of   India,   the   letter   mentions   that recognition of Ph.D. degree does not come under the purview   of   Medical   Council   of   India.    The   Medical Council   of   India   in   its   First   Schedule   recognizes medical   courses   which   also   contains   various   Ph.D. courses. It may be true that Ph.D. degree awarded to a   candidate   needs   no   recognition   from   the   Medical Council of India but for the purposes of this case, the marks can be claimed by a candidate in promotion only when the Ph.D. course is recognized by Medical Council   of   India.   Thus   the   letter   dated 15.12.2017/07.12.2017   cannot   help   the   appellant   in the present case. Moreover, any communication issued by Joint Secretary of Medical Council of India cannot 23 be   given   any   precedence   on   the   clear   statutory provisions  contained  in Section 11  read with  First Schedule of Medical Council of India Act, 1956.  23. Now,   we   come   to   the   Post   Graduate   training program   on   which   the   appellant   is   also   claiming allocation   of   marks.     Two   year   full   time   training program to be eligible for award of one mark required to fulfill following conditions: a)    full time structured training program. b)   during study leave in India/abroad. c)   in   a   medical   field   from   an institution/university         recognised by statutory body. 24. The appellant has filed certificate as Annexure A­1 dated  11.12.1995  issued by  Professor  and  Head, Department  of Pediatrics, G.S.V.M. Medical  College, Kanpur, which is to the following effect: “         Department of Pediatrics Children's   hospital:   G.S.V.M.   Medical College: Kanpur – 208002 24                          Dated:11.12.1995               CERTIFICATE Certified   that   Indra   Veer   Singh   Gahlot had   been   working   in   Pediatrics   from March,   1991   till   November,   1993.   The Department   of   pediatrics   is   recognized for M.D. Pediatrics and Diploma Courses. The   department   is   maintaining   student­ teacher ratio of 1:1 including Dr. Indra Veer Singh Gahlot.   During the period of stay   of   Dr.   Gahlot,   Prof.G.P.Mathur   was the Head of the Department.       During the period of his stay, Dr. Gahlot   was   doing   emergency   duties independently. He had chances to perform exchange­blood   transfusions   in   the premature   Baby   Nursery.   He   also participated   in   the   P.G.teaching programme. Sd/­(Illegible) Sarla Mathur Prof.& Head” 25. The   above   certificate   does   not   indicate   that appellant   completed   full   time   structured   training programme. 26. The   appellant   contended   that   he   was   granted permission to attend the training program but there 25 is no material to indicate that he was granted two years   study   leave   to   join   two   years   structured training program. The certificate dated 11.12.1995 as claimed by appellant does not fulfill the essential conditions as laid down in paragraph 11 of the Order dated 22.05.2006 to make appellant eligible for one mark. We thus do not find any error in the Promotion Board (Medical) not allocating one mark for two years training   program.   Armed   Forces   Tribunal   did   not commit any error in rejecting the above claim also. We   thus   do   not   find   any   error   in   the   judgment   of Armed Forces Tribunal warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 27. The Civil Appeal is dismissed. ..........................J. ( A.K. SIKRI ) ..........................J.     ( ASHOK BHUSHAN ) NEW DELHI, AUGUST 06,2018.