Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 19
PETITIONER:
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANOTHER, ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DR. R. MURALI BABU RAO & ANR., ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT09/03/1988
BENCH:
SEN, A.P. (J)
BENCH:
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.
HEADNOTE:
%
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 19
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’.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 19
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]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 19
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 19
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.
JUDGMENT:
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 19
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 19
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 /
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 19
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 19
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 19
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 19
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 19
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 19
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 19
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.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 19
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 19
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 19
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 19
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 19
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.
198