# COL. IVS GAHLOT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2018] 9 S.C.R. 462
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-08-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 8047 of 2018
- **Bench:** A. K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/col-ivs-gahlot-v-union-of-india-and-ors-33073
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Medical Council of India Act, 1956 - s.11 r/w First Schedule
- Armed Forces Medical Services - Appellant, Colonel considered
for promotion to the rank of Brigadier, but not selected - O.A filed
by appellant contending that the promotion policy dated 14.01.2004
could not have been reviewed before five years and thus, the
amendment of said policy by Order dated 22.05.2006 was not valid
- O.A dismissed - On appeal, held: Stipulation in the policy dated
14.01.2004 that policy will be reviewed after five years was not a
fetter on right of the Government to review the policy - Further,
admittedly, the appellant was considered 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 - In the policy dated
14.01.2004, on any Ph.D. degree a candidate was eligible for grant
of three marks - However, after amendment by Order dated
22.05.2006, the eligibility was restricted to "Ph.D. recognised by
Medical Council of India" - No exception can be taken to the said
amendment - Section 11 provides for recognition of medical
qualifications granted by universities or medical institutions in India
- First Schedule to the Act contains list of universities and medical
institutions granting such recognised medical qualifications -
Berhampur University, from where the appellant obtained his Ph.D.
degree in Anthropology (Science) is also one of the universities
mentioned in the First Schedule - Various medical courses of
Berhampur University find place in the First Schedule but Ph.D. in
Anthropology(Science) is not included in the recognised medical
qualifications of Berhampur University - No fault found in the
restriction imposed by policy dated 22.05.2006 restricting award
of marks only to the Ph.D. degrees recognized by MCI - Further,
Certificate produced by the appellant also does not fulfill the
 [2018] 9 S.C.R. 462
462
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
463
essential conditions as laid down in Order dated 22.05.2006 to
make the appellant eligible for one mark for two year full time
training program - No error in the judgment of Armed Forces
Tribunal warranting interference - Service Law - Promotion -
Promotion Policy.
Service Law - Promotion policy - Change in - Held: 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 the policy from time to
time.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 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 the policy from time to time. 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. The view of the Tribunal that the policy
dated 14.01.2004 could have rightly been amended in the year
2006, is fully approved. [Paras 13, 14] [469-F-G; 470-F-G]
1.2 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, no error is
found in consideration of the claim of the appellant as per the
amended policy dated 22.05.2006. [Para 15] [470-H; 471-A-B]
1.3 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 Council of

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
462
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
COL. IVS GAHLOT
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8047 of 2018)
AUGUST 06, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Medical Council of India Act, 1956 - s.11 r/w First Schedule
- Armed Forces Medical Services - Appellant, Colonel considered
for promotion to the rank of Brigadier, but not selected - O.A filed
by appellant contending that the promotion policy dated 14.01.2004
could not have been reviewed before five years and thus, the
amendment of said policy by Order dated 22.05.2006 was not valid
- O.A dismissed - On appeal, held: Stipulation in the policy dated
14.01.2004 that policy will be reviewed after five years was not a
fetter on right of the Government to review the policy - Further,
admittedly, the appellant was considered 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 - In the policy dated
14.01.2004, on any Ph.D. degree a candidate was eligible for grant
of three marks - However, after amendment by Order dated
22.05.2006, the eligibility was restricted to "Ph.D. recognised by
Medical Council of India" - No exception can be taken to the said
amendment - Section 11 provides for recognition of medical
qualifications granted by universities or medical institutions in India
- First Schedule to the Act contains list of universities and medical
institutions granting such recognised medical qualifications -
Berhampur University, from where the appellant obtained his Ph.D.
degree in Anthropology (Science) is also one of the universities
mentioned in the First Schedule - Various medical courses of
Berhampur University find place in the First Schedule but Ph.D. in
Anthropology(Science) is not included in the recognised medical
qualifications of Berhampur University - No fault found in the
restriction imposed by policy dated 22.05.2006 restricting award
of marks only to the Ph.D. degrees recognized by MCI - Further,
Certificate produced by the appellant also does not fulfill the
 [2018] 9 S.C.R. 462
462
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
463
essential conditions as laid down in Order dated 22.05.2006 to
make the appellant eligible for one mark for two year full time
training program - No error in the judgment of Armed Forces
Tribunal warranting interference - Service Law - Promotion -
Promotion Policy.
Service Law - Promotion policy - Change in - Held: 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 the policy from time to
time.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 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 the policy from time to time. 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. The view of the Tribunal that the policy
dated 14.01.2004 could have rightly been amended in the year
2006, is fully approved. [Paras 13, 14] [469-F-G; 470-F-G]
1.2 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, no error is
found in consideration of the claim of the appellant as per the
amended policy dated 22.05.2006. [Para 15] [470-H; 471-A-B]
1.3 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 Council of India". No exception can be taken to the
amendment by which only those Ph.D. degrees are eligible for
COL. IVS GAHLOT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
464
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
one mark which are recognised by Medical Council of India. There
is a rationale 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. Section 11 of the 1956 Act
provides for recognition of medical qualifications granted by
universities or medical institutions in India. It 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 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. [Paras 16, 19]
[471-C-E; 473-C-E]
2. 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 which in turn refers to the letter dated 07.12.2017 of
Medical Council of India mentioning that recognition of Ph.D.
degree does not come under the purview of Medical Council of
India, cannot help the appellant in the present case. Moreover,
any communication issued by Joint Secretary of Medical Council
of India cannot be given any precedence on the clear statutory
provisions contained in Section 11 read with First Schedule of
the 1956 Act. [Para 22] [477-B-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
465
3. The appellant has filed certificate dated 11.12.1995
issued by Professor and Head, Department of Pediatrics, G.S.V.M.
Medical College, Kanpur. The said certificate filed by does not
indicate that appellant completed full time structured training
programme. The appellant contended that he was granted
permission to attend the training program but there 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 the Order dated 22.05.2006 to make
appellant eligible for one mark. No error is found 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. No error is found in the judgment
of Armed Forces Tribunal warranting interference by this Court
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India. [Para 26] [478-E-G]
Hardev Singh v. Union of India and Another
(2011) 10 SCC 121 - relied on.
 Case Law Reference
(2011) 10 SCC 121
 relied on
Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8047
of 2018.
From the impugned Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2015 of the
the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi in O.A.
No. 428 of 2013.
Yashank P. Adhyaru, Sr. Adv., T. N. Razdan, Mirza Kayesh Begg,
Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sushma Manchanda, Vikas Bansal,
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria,
Advs. for the Respondents.
COL. IVS GAHLOT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
466
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. 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 by
Promotion Board (Medical) but could not be selected for promotion.
Appellant had filed a statutory complaint against the non-promotion 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 non-promotion, 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 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
467
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 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) 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 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.
COL. IVS GAHLOT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
468
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
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 A-5.
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 qualifications. It is useful to
extract the aforesaid item No.(d) of the aforesaid table:
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)(Super-Speciality subject)
 (e) Two years training during study

 -3

 leave in a specialized field

 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 above-mentioned
qualifications, marks for only one qualification will be credited."
" Qualifications: Officers in possession of the
following academic will be aw arded marks, as
mentioned against each:-
1
Qualification
Marks
(d)
Tw o-year
full
time
training
program
during study leave in
India/Abroad
in
a
medical field from an
institution/university
recognized
by
a
statutory body
2
 "
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
469
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 "amendment to promotion policy dated
14th 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 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)
 (Super-speciality 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 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
COL. IVS GAHLOT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
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 Haryana, (1999) 3 SCC
696 where this 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 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. Admittedly the appellant came for consideration by the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
471
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 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
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:
COL. IVS GAHLOT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
"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(ME-I)
Subject: Recognition of Ph.D. Degree -request of Col. Indra
 Veer Singh Gahlot - Regarding
Sir,
Please refer to your letter No.Z.20015/15/2015-ME-I(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/-x-x-x-x-x
 (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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
473
(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 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 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:-
COL. IVS GAHLOT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
474
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
University
or
Medical
Instituti on
Recognis ed
Medical
Qualification
Abbreviation
for
Reg istration
Berhamp ur
University
Bachelor of Medicine
and
Bachelo r
of
Surgery
Diplo ma
i n
Orthopaedics
Diplo ma
in
Chi ld
Health
Doctor
o f
Medicine
(Phys iolo gy )
Master
of
Su rgery
(Ortho paed ics)
Doctor
o f
Medicine
(Paed iatrics)
Master
of
Su rgery
(Gen eral Surgery)
Doctor
o f
Medicine
(Gen eral M ed icine)
Doctor of Medicine
(Pharmacology)
Doctor of M ed icine
(Patholo gy)
Master
of
Su rgery
(Anatom y)
M.B .B .S.,
Berhampur
D. Ort ho .,
Berhampur
D.C .H., B erh ampur
M.D. (Phys iology)
M.S. (Orthopaed ics)
M.D. (Paed iatrics)
M.S.
(General
Surgery)
M.D.
(General
Medicine)
M.D.
(Pharmacology)
M.D. (Patholo gy)
M.S. (Anatom y)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
475
COL. IVS GAHLOT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
or
)
ral
ral
M aster
o f
Su rger y
(E .N .T .)
D octo r
o f
M ed icine
(Fo ren sic
M ed icine
and T o xicolo gy )
D octo r
o f
M ed icine
(So cial an d P re ven tive
Med icine)
D octo r
o f
M ed icine
(A n aesthesi olo gy)
D octo r
o f
M ed icine
(O b stetrics
an d
G ynaeco log y)
D octo r
o f
M ed icine
(M icrob iolo gy )
D octo r
o f
M ed icine
(D e rm ato log y,
V enerolo gy
and
Lep ro sy )
M.S. ( E.N .T .)
M.D .
(Forens ic
Med ic ine
a nd
To xico log y)
M.D .
(S .P .M .)
(M .K .C .G.)
M ed ica l
Col lege,
B erh am pu r
granted
from
1-12 -1 97 4.
M.D . (A n aes .)
M.D .
(O b st.
A nd
G ynae ) (T his sh a ll b e
a
recog niz ed
qu alifica tio n
w hen
granted in
or af ter
19 75 )
M.D . (M icrob iol ogy )
(T h is
shall
be
a
reco gn ized
m ed ica l
qu alifica tio n
w hen
granted
by
Be rham p ur
U niv ersit y i n resp ec t
of the stud e nts b eing
tra in ed
M .K .C.G .
Med ic al
Col lege ,
Be rham p ur, O ris sa on
or afte r 1 99 0.)
M.D . (D .V .L.)
(T h is
shall
be
a
reco gn ized
m ed ica l
qu alifica tio n
w hen
granted
by
Be rham p ur
U niv ersit y i n resp ec t
of
stud e nts
b eing
tra in ed at M .K .C.G .
Med ic al
Col lege ,
Be rham p ur, O ris sa on
or afte r 1 99 1.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
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:-
University
or
Medical
Institution
Recognised
M ed ical
Q ualification
Abbreviation
for
Registration
All
India
Institute
of
Medical Sciences
Doctor
of
Philosophy
(Anatomy)
Doctor
of
Philosophy
(Biochemistry)
Doctor
of
Philosophy
(Microbiology)
Doctor
of
Philosophy
(Pathology)
Doctor
of
Philosophy
(Physiology)
and 38 other fields.
Ph.D. (Anat.)
Ph.D. (Biochem.)
Ph.D. (Micro.)
Ph.D. (Patho.)
Ph.D. (Physiology)
Sree
Chitra
Thirunal Institute
for
Medical
Science
and
Technology,
Thiruvananthapura
Doctor
of
Philosophy
(Biochemistry)
Doctor
of
Philosophy
(Microbiology)
Doctor
of
Philosophy
(Pathology)
Ph.D. (Biochem.)
Ph.D. (Micro.)
Ph.D. (Patho.)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
477
22. There being Ph.D. degree courses recognized for 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 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 A-1 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
for
y)
COL. IVS GAHLOT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
478
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
 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 exchange-blood
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 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.
Divya Pandey
 Appeal dismissed.