DR.PURSHOTAM KUMAR KAUNDAL vs. STATE OF H.P

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTON

Dr.Purshotam Kumar Kaundal ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. and Others ....Respondents J U D G M E N T Madan B. Lokur, J. Leave granted. JUDGMENT 2. The only question for consideration is whether respondent No.5 Dr. D.D. Gupta was eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Medical Education Service Rules, 1999. In our opinion, the question should be answered in the affirmative and against the appellant Dr. Purshotam Kumar Kaundal. Civil Appeal No.1956/2014 Page 1 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012 Page 1 3. The eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor, as laid down in the Service Rules is as follows:-

4. Dr. Gupta had obtained a post graduation degree in Pharmacology from the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak on st 31 December, 1991. He believed that he met the eligibility criterion as per the Service Rules and ought to have been JUDGMENT considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. 5. However, when his case came up for consideration for th promotion before the Departmental Promotion Committee on 28 August, 2001 he was not considered apparently on the ground that he did not possess an M.D. degree in Pharmacology duly recognized by the Medical Council of India (for short the MCI). We Civil Appeal No.1956/2014 Page 2 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012 Page 2 th were told that this decision was based on a letter dated 8 July, 2001 issued by the Deputy Secretary in the MCI to the Director of Medical Education and Research, Himachal Pradesh in which it is stated as follows :- “Kindly refer to your letter No. HFW (DME) H(1)A- 20/99, dated 1.9.2001, this is to inform you that MD (Pharmacology) qualification granted by Maharishi Dayanand University in respect of students being trained at Pt B.D. Sharma Postgraduate Institute of Medical Science is not recognized by the Council for purposes of IMC Act, 1956.” 6. Dr. Gupta challenged the failure of the Departmental Promotion Committee to consider him for promotion by filing an original application before the State Administrative Tribunal. The original application was transferred to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and registered as CWP (T) No.7948 of 2008. JUDGMENT th 7. By a judgment and order dated 9 August, 2010 a learned Single Judge of the High Court rejected the writ petition filed by Dr. Gupta. The learned Single Judge held that Section 11(1) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short the Act) provides that only those medical qualifications granted by any university or medical institution in India which are included in the First Schedule to the Act shall be recognized medical qualifications for Civil Appeal No.1956/2014 Page 3 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012 Page 3 the purposes of the Act. The learned Single Judge held that since an M.D. in Pharmacology from the Maharishi Dayanand University was not included in the First Schedule to the Act, Dr. Gupta was

Assistant Professor in Pharmacology. It was also held that since Maharishi Dayanand University did not apply for recognition of the qualification to the Central Government in terms of Section 11(2) of the Act, Dr. Gupta was also not entitled to the benefit of that sub-section of Section 11 of the Act. The learned Single Judge also referred to Section 2(h) of the Act which defines a recognised medical qualification as meaning any of the medical qualifications included in the schedules of the Act. It was held that the qualification obtained by Dr. Gupta from the Maharishi Dayanand JUDGMENT University did not fall under any schedule to the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Feeling aggrieved, Dr. Gupta preferred LPA No.176 of 2010 in th the High Court. By its judgment and order dated 19 October, 2011 the High Court agreed with Dr. Gupta and allowed the letters patent appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the Civil Appeal No.1956/2014 Page 4 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012 Page 4 learned Single Judge. The official respondents were directed by the High Court to hold a review departmental promotion committee for the post of Assistant Professor within a period of

all consequential benefits in case he is found suitable by the review departmental promotion committee for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in 2001. 9. The High Court was of the view that the eligibility criteria only required a recognized post graduation degree. It did not require a post graduation degree recognized by the MCI. The degree obtained by Dr. Gupta was a recognized post graduation degree inasmuch as it was conferred by a recognized statutory university. Therefore, Dr. Gupta was eligible for being considered JUDGMENT for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor in Pharmacology. 10. The High Court also noted that in a later departmental th promotion committee held on or about 25 November, 2012 Dr. Gupta was found eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor and was in fact so promoted, while holding the same qualifications. Civil Appeal No.1956/2014 Page 5 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012 Page 5 11. We are of the opinion that no fault can be found with the view taken by the High Court in the letters patent appeal filed by Dr. Gupta. The Service Rules mainly concern themselves with a

that recognition of the post graduation degree must be by the MCI. On the contrary, we have gone through the Service Rules and find that wherever recognition by the MCI is postulated, there is a specific reference to it in the Service Rules. 12. Rule 2(n) of the Service Rules defines a post graduate qualification as meaning a qualification as specified in Appendix C-I and II. We are concerned with Appendix C-II which contains a list of post graduate qualifications. Some of the post graduation degrees that require recognition by the MCI are specifically JUDGMENT mentioned therein. These are as follows:

Civil Appeal No.1956/2014 Page 6 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012 Page 6

Civil Appeal No.1956/2014 Page 7 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012 Page 7

Civil Appeal No.1956/2014 Page 8 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012 Page 8

JUDGMENT 14. Learned counsel for Dr. Kaundal submitted that if the appeal is dismissed, rights that have accrued or vested in his client, including his seniority over Dr. Gupta, will be disturbed and this is not permissible. The submission is stated only to be rejected. In view of the fact that Dr. Gupta was wrongly not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor in Pharmacology, he deserves to be now considered and if found suitable, entitled to Civil Appeal No.1956/2014 Page 9 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012 Page 9 all consequential benefits. In this context, we may note that the State of Himachal Pradesh has not challenged the decision of the High Court directing reconsideration.

obtained by Dr. Gupta was subsequently recognized by the MCI by a Notification issued in 2004 and that the Notification would not have retrospective effect so as to make Dr. Gupta eligible for consideration for promotion. It is not necessary for us to deal with this contention since we have held that Dr. Gupta’s post graduation degree did not require any recognition by the MCI. 16. Finally, it was contended that if Dr. Gupta is promoted it would be contrary to the Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998. This submission was not JUDGMENT made by Dr. Kaundal at any point of time and was only raised in passing by his learned counsel in his rejoinder submissions. We are not inclined to entertain this submission at this stage. 17. We find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. Civil Appeal No.1956/2014 Page 10 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012 Page 10 …………………………….J (Ranjana Prakash Desai) …………………………….J (Madan B. Lokur) New Delhi; February 11, 2014 JUDGMENT Civil Appeal No.1956/2014 Page 11 of 10 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.7729/2012 Page 11