# M. C. GUPTA ETC v. A. K. GUPTA &: ORS .• ETC

- **Citation:** [1979] 2 S.C.R. 853
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-12-15
- **Bench:** V. R. KRISHNA IYE!t, D. A. Desai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-c-gupta-etc-v-a-k-gupta-ors-etc-7673
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Indian M1dical Council Act, 1956. S. 2(/) read with General Regulations,
R. 4, "Medicine", includes specialist branch of cardiology-''Research experience'', computation, holding of specified post whether pre-requisite while conducting research-"Teaching experience" in foreign institutions when can be
taken into account.
B
The appellant Dr. M. C. Gupta and the· sixth respondent Dr. R. N. Tandon,
C
were appointed to the post of 'Professor in medicine in State Government
Medical Colleges. The appointments were made by the State Government, on
the rccon1ntendation of U.P. Public Service Commission, which ha<l earlier
with the assistance of four medical experts, selected them through an interview.
The respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 who were also candidates for the post filed!
a writ petition ,in the High Court, challenging the selection and appointment
of Dr. M. C. Gupta and Dr. R. N. Tandon, though no mala fides were
D
attributed to the Commission.
A Single Judge of the High Court issued a
writ quashing the selection, on the ground that neither of the two selected.
doctors had the requisite teaching experience and that neither of them was.
qualified for selection as Professor of Medicine. In appeal, the appellate Bench
of the High Court confirmed the order quashing the selections, and further
quashed the order of appointment, remitting the matter to the Commission,
directing it to make fresh selection in consonance with the interpretation put
Er
upon the relevant regulation, by the court.
Allowing the three connected appeals, one by Dr. M. C. Gupta, and 1\vo
by the State of U .P ., the Court
HELD . I. Medicine includes cardiology.
The
~ledical Council of India,
a body composed of experts, have in the regulations clearly 1nanifested their
approach when they s;aid that cardiology is
a specialist branch under n1edi..
F
cine.
Where general subject such as medicine or surgery is being dealt with,
in a regulation, the specialist branch under it would be covered, though not
vice versa, because if one wants to hold a post in the specialist branch, he
must of necessity have teaching experience in the specialist branch. [859 G,
860 D, 861 E].
II. If general regulation 4 is properly analysed for the purpose of computing
G
research experience, the prerequisite is that the research must be done after
obtaining the requisite post-graduate qualification.
It has no reference to the
post held by the person engaged in research at the time of conducting the
research, and, to say that holding of the post specified in the regulation, is a
pre-requisiite while conducting research, is to read in regulation 4, what is not
prescribed thereunder. [862 D·F].
Ill. Teaching experience in foreign teaching institutions can be taken into
account, but, they must be some recognised institutions of repute and not any
institution outside the territory of India. f865 G, 866 CJ.
l 6-40SCI /79
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 2 s.c.R.
--A
State of Bihar &: Anr. v. Dr. Asis Kun1ar Mukherjee &: Ors., [1975]
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
2 SCR 894; followed.
Vade Mecum :
In view of the twilight zone of Court's interfe-rcncc in appointment to
posts requiring technical experience made consequent upon selection by Public
Service Commission, aided and advised by experts having technical experience
and high academic qualifications in the specialist field, probing
teaching/re~
search experience in technical subiects, within the framework of Regulations
framed by the Medical Council of India, under s. 33 of tho Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 and approved by the Government of India, the courts
should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts, unless
lhere are allegation• of ma/a fie/es against them. [857 E-G].
University of Mysore &:: A11r. v. C. D.
Govinda Rao le
A.nr.,
[1964] 4 SCR 575; applied.
State of Bihar &: Anr. v. Dr. A.sis Kumar Mukherjee & Ors.,
[1975] 2 SCR 894; explained.
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 357 /77 and
1142-1143178.
Appeals by Special

## Text

_Characters 0–39,942 of 45,228. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39942 for what follows._

I
•
-"':'\.·
a:
I
~ '
'
\ ,
"
l
~
;,;l_ ..
853
M. C. GUPTA ETC.
v.
A. K. GUPTA &: ORS .• ETC.
December 15, 1978
[V. R. KRISHNA IYE!t AND. D. A. DESAI, JJ.]
Indian M1dical Council Act, 1956. S. 2(/) read with General Regulations,
R. 4, "Medicine", includes specialist branch of cardiology-''Research experience'', computation, holding of specified post whether pre-requisite while conducting research-"Teaching experience" in foreign institutions when can be
taken into account.
B
The appellant Dr. M. C. Gupta and the· sixth respondent Dr. R. N. Tandon,
C
were appointed to the post of 'Professor in medicine in State Government
Medical Colleges. The appointments were made by the State Government, on
the rccon1ntendation of U.P. Public Service Commission, which ha<l earlier
with the assistance of four medical experts, selected them through an interview.
The respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 who were also candidates for the post filed!
a writ petition ,in the High Court, challenging the selection and appointment
of Dr. M. C. Gupta and Dr. R. N. Tandon, though no mala fides were
D
attributed to the Commission.
A Single Judge of the High Court issued a
writ quashing the selection, on the ground that neither of the two selected.
doctors had the requisite teaching experience and that neither of them was.
qualified for selection as Professor of Medicine. In appeal, the appellate Bench
of the High Court confirmed the order quashing the selections, and further
quashed the order of appointment, remitting the matter to the Commission,
directing it to make fresh selection in consonance with the interpretation put
Er
upon the relevant regulation, by the court.
Allowing the three connected appeals, one by Dr. M. C. Gupta, and 1\vo
by the State of U .P ., the Court
HELD . I. Medicine includes cardiology.
The
~ledical Council of India,
a body composed of experts, have in the regulations clearly 1nanifested their
approach when they s;aid that cardiology is
a specialist branch under n1edi..
F
cine.
Where general subject such as medicine or surgery is being dealt with,
in a regulation, the specialist branch under it would be covered, though not
vice versa, because if one wants to hold a post in the specialist branch, he
must of necessity have teaching experience in the specialist branch. [859 G,
860 D, 861 E].
II. If general regulation 4 is properly analysed for the purpose of computing
G
research experience, the prerequisite is that the research must be done after
obtaining the requisite post-graduate qualification.
It has no reference to the
post held by the person engaged in research at the time of conducting the
research, and, to say that holding of the post specified in the regulation, is a
pre-requisiite while conducting research, is to read in regulation 4, what is not
prescribed thereunder. [862 D·F].
Ill. Teaching experience in foreign teaching institutions can be taken into
account, but, they must be some recognised institutions of repute and not any
institution outside the territory of India. f865 G, 866 CJ.
l 6-40SCI /79
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 2 s.c.R.
--A
State of Bihar &: Anr. v. Dr. Asis Kun1ar Mukherjee &: Ors., [1975]
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
2 SCR 894; followed.
Vade Mecum :
In view of the twilight zone of Court's interfe-rcncc in appointment to
posts requiring technical experience made consequent upon selection by Public
Service Commission, aided and advised by experts having technical experience
and high academic qualifications in the specialist field, probing
teaching/re~
search experience in technical subiects, within the framework of Regulations
framed by the Medical Council of India, under s. 33 of tho Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 and approved by the Government of India, the courts
should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts, unless
lhere are allegation• of ma/a fie/es against them. [857 E-G].
University of Mysore &:: A11r. v. C. D.
Govinda Rao le
A.nr.,
[1964] 4 SCR 575; applied.
State of Bihar &: Anr. v. Dr. A.sis Kumar Mukherjee & Ors.,
[1975] 2 SCR 894; explained.
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 357 /77 and
1142-1143178.
Appeals by Special Leave from tho Judgment and Order dated
28-8-75 and 17-9-75 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal
Nos. 233, 254 and 264 of 1975.
L. N. Sinha, Santosh Chatterjee, Vi~et Kumar and P. P. Singh
for t!J~ Appellant in CA 357177.
S. N. Kacker, Sol. General, M. V. Goswami and Ra1iv Dutt for
the Appellants in CA 1142-1143178 and RR 4 and 5 in CA 357177.
A. K. Sen, S. C. Patel and Bishamber Lal for Rcsponcknt No. l
in All the appeals.
V. M. Tarkunde, S. C. Patel and Bishamber Lal for R. 2 in all
appeah;.
G. L. Sanghi, S. C. Patel and Bishamber Lal for R. 3 in all
appeals.
Rajiv Dutt and P. C. Kapur for R. 6 in CA 357177.
Santosh Chatterjee and Vinut Kumar for R 6 in CA 1142178.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DESAI, J. Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Civil Appeal No. 357 /77
filed writ petition No. 5462174 challenging the selection by U.P. Public
Service Commission ('Commission' for short) and subsequent appointment by U.P. State Government of appellant and respondent No. 6 to
the post of Professor in Modicine in State Government Medical Colleges.
A learned single Jud'e of the High Comt quashed the selec-
~'"
'
• ,.._
/~
..
b
..
'
•
•
•
M. c. GUPTA v. A. K. GUPTA (Desai, !.)
855
tions. Four appeals came to be preferred against the judgment quashing selections.
Special Appeal No. 232/75 was filed by Dr. R. N.
Tandon, respondent No. 6; Special Appeal No. 233 of 1975 was preferred by the present appellant Dr. M. C. Gupta; Special Appeal No.
264 of 1975 was preferred by the State of U.P.; and Special Appeal
No. 256 of 1975 was filed by respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Civil
Appeal No. 357177 against that part of the judgment of the learned
single Judge by which appointment of appellant Dr. M. C. Gupta and
respondent No. 6, Dr. R. N. Tandon, was not auashed .
The appellate Bench partly allowed the appeals and while confirming the order quashing the selecti<m of Dr. M. C. Gupta and Dr. R. N.
Tandon, also quashed their appointment and remitted the matter to
the Commission directing it to re-examine the relative merits of all
candidates in tire light of the interpretation put upon the relevant
regulations by the Court. Arising from this common judgment, three
appeals by special leave are preferred to this Court. Civil Appeal No.
357177 is preferred by Dr. M. C. Gupta and Civil Appeals Nos. i142
l< 1143 of 1978 are preferred by the State of U.P.
To focus the attention on the contention raised at the hearing of
these appeals, a brief resnme of facts would be advantageous.
The
Commission invited applications for two posts of Professor of Medicine in the State Medical Colleges as per its advertisement dat~d Sib
September 1973, subsequently extending the last date for receipt of
applications to 30th March 1974, Dr. M. C. Gupta and Dr. R. N.
Tandon (referred to as the 'appellants') along with Dr. A. K. Gupta,
Dr. Brij Kishore and Dr. S. N. Aggarwal (referred to as 'respond•wts
1, 2 and 3), applied for the post.
The advertisement set out the
prescribed qualifications for tho post under Regulations made under
s. 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ('Act' for short). They
were in respect of the academic attainments, teachinglresenrcb experience, upper age limit, etc.
Th~ Commission was assisted by four
medical experts in the matter of interview, selection and recommm-
<lation of suitable candidates satisfying the requisite qualifications for
the post. The Commission selected Dr. M. C. Gupta and Dr. R. N.
Tandon for the two posts of Professor in Medicine and recommemJed
their names to the State Government. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 who
"ere also candidates for the post, presumably came to know abol'i the
recommendation and moved the High Court on 13th September 1974
by way of a writ petition questioning the selection. The rotition was
admitted and rule nisi was issued.
An ex parte interim stay restraining
the G011ernrn~nt from making the appointments was granted but subA
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
856
SUPREME t!:OURT REPORTS
[l<J,791 2 S.C.R
sequently it was vacated. The State Government accevted the recomn1endations of the Commission and appointed Dr. M. C. Gup~ and:
Dr. R. N. Tandon as ProfeliSOrs of Medicine on 30th Oc!ober 1974.
The petition was subsequently amended questioning
the order of
appointment. As already stated above, the learned single Judge held
that neither Dr. M. C. Gupta nor Dr. R. N. Tandon had the requisite
teaching experience and that neither of them was qualified for selection
as Professor of Medicine and accordingly allowed the writ petition and
quashed the selection. By a common jndgment in the appeals arising
from the judgment of the learned single Judge, the appellate Bench
confirmed the order quashing the selections and further quashed
the
order of appointment and remitted the
matter to the Commission directing it to make fresh selection in consonance with the
interpretation put upon the relevant regulations by the Court.
Three
appeals are before us.
These three appeals obviously were heard·
together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The selection and appointment of Dr. M.C. Gupta and Dr. R. N.
Tandon were questioned only on one ground in that each of them did'
not satisfy the requisite teaching/research e;xperience.
The controversy in these appeals centres round the question of teaching/researclr
experience and the relevant regulation in this behalf may be extracted :
Post
Academic
Subje<it
Teaching/
qualifications
Research
experience
(b)
Professor/
M.D., M.R.C.P.,
Medicine
(b) As
Reader/
Associate Professor F.R.C.P.,
Asstt. Professor
Speciality Board
in
Medicine
for
of Internal Medicine
5 years
in
a
(U.S.A.) or an
Medical
Collegeequivalent
after
requisite
qualification in
post~graduate
the subject.
qualification.
Regulation 4 of General Regulations provides as under :
"4. 50 % of the time spent in recognised research under
the Indian Council of Medical Research or a University or a
Medical College, after obtaining the requisite post-graduate
qualification be counted towards teaching exerience in the
same or an allied subject provided that 50% of the teaching
experience shall be the regular teaching experience."
H
The teaching/ research experience claimed by each of the appellants·
may be set out and then the comments of each sid'e in respect of each
item may be examined :
•
y'
' ...
'
•
•
•
M. c. GUPTA v. A, K. GUPTA (Desai, ],)
857
Experience of !Jr. M. C. Gupta.
l. 25th January 1965 to 19th July 1971-Lecturer in Cardiology in the Department of
Medicine 'in S.N. Medical College, Agra.
II. July 71 up to the date ofappointment as Profess0r-Reader in Medicine in S, N. Medical College, Agra.
Experience of Dr. R. N. Tarulon
About 6 years
and 6
months'
teaching experience.
About
months'
perience.
2
3 years,
teaching
exI.
Isl October 1965 to 31st
October, 1966One year's teaching ex-
·Post doctoral teaching fellow, Department
perience.
of Medicine, State University of New York
at Buffalo, U.S.A.
JI. !st February,
1967 to 31st January 1968One year's teaching e•-
As a Lecturer while posted as Pool Officer
perience
Department of Medicine in G.S.V.M. Modica!
College, Kanpur.
III. 5th April 1968 to 4th July 1969-Post doc15
months' teaching
toral research fellow, Department of Me--
experience.
dicine
in
G.S.V.M.
Medical
College,
Kanpur.
JV.
29th July 1969 to 30th October 1974- (date Over 5 years' teaching
of appointment as Professor)-Assistant
Pro· experience.
fessor of Medicine, State University of New
York, at Buffalo U.S.A.
Before the rival comments are probed and analysed, it would be
necessary to keep in view the twilight zone of Court's interference in
appointment to posts requiring technical experience made consequent
upon selection by Public Service Commission, aided by experts in the
field, within the framework of Regulations framed by the Medical
Council of India under s. 33 of the Indian Medical Connell Act, 1956,
and approved by the Government of India on 5th June 1971. When
selection is made by the Commission aided and advised by experts
having technical experience and high academic qualifications in the
specialist field, probing teaching/research experience in technical subjects, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed
by experts unless there are allegations of mala fides against them. It
would normally be prudent and safe for the Courts to leave the decision
of academic matters to experts who arc more familiar with the problems
they face than the Courts generally can be. Undoubtedly, even such
a body if it were to contravene rules and regulations binding upon it
in making the selectiDn and recommending the selectees for appointment, the Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to enforce
rule of !aw, may interfere. in a writ petition under Article 226. Even
then the Court, while enforcing the rule of law, should give due weight
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
858
SUPREME COURT REP<YRTS
[1979] 2 s.c.R.
to the opinions expressed by the experts and also show due regard to
its recommendations on which t1le State Government acted. If the
recommen~ations made by the body of experts keeping in view the
relevant rules and regulations manifest due consideration of all the
relevant factors, the Court should be very slow to interfere with such
recommendations (see, The University of Mysore & Anr. v. C. D.
Govinda Rao & Anr.,(').
In a more comparable situation in State
of Bihar & Anr. v. Dr. Asis Kumar Mukher;ee, and Ors.,(') this
Court observed as under :
"Shri Jagdish Swaroop rightly stressed that once the right
to appoint belonged to Government the Court could not usurp
it merely because it would have chosen a different person as
better qualified or given a finer gloss or different construction
to the regulation on the score of a set formula that relevant
circumstances had been excluded, irrelevant factors had influenced and such like grounds familiarly invented by parties
to invoke the
extraordinary
jurisdiction under Art. 226.
True, no speaking order need be made while appointing a
government servant. Speaking in plaintitudinous terms these
propositions may deserve serious reflection. The Administration should not be thwarted in the usual course of making
appointments because somehow it displeases judicial relish
or the Court does not agree with its estimate of the relative
worth of the candidates. Is there violation of a fundamental
right, iHegality or a skin error of law which vitiates the
appointn1ent".
With these blurred contours of periphery of jurisdiction under
Article 226 to interfere with selections made by an indept;ndcnt body
like Public Service Commission not attributed any ma/a fides, assisted
by four experts in the field who presumably knew what
constituted
teaching/research experience, what institutions arc treated prestigious
enough, in which teachlng/research experience would be treated valuable, we may examine the rival contentions.
Two contentions which have found favour with the
High Court
must engage our attention : (1) In order to satisfy the experience
qualification for the, post of Professor in Medicine, the teaching/research
experience must be in medicine and stricto sensu Cardiology being a
separate branch, experience of teaching/research in Cardiology cannot
be availed of, and (2) any such experience to satisfy the regulation
must be acquire while holding the post of Reader oi: Assistant Professor (including the post of Lecturer) in Medicine.
The controversy centres round the connotation of the expression
(I) [1964] 4 SCR 575.
(2) [1975] 2 SCR 894.
l'
•
•
• •
•
•
M. c. GUPTA v. A. K. GUPTA (Desai, /.)
859
'medicine'.
Does it include Cardiology or Cardiology is a separate
Branch ? Section 2(f) of the Act defines medicine to mean modern
scientific medicine in all its branches and includes surgery and obstetrics, but does not include veterinary medicine and surgery. This is too
wide a definition to assist us in the problem posed for the decision of
the Court. In the world of medical science there are general subjects
and specialities. Medicine and surgery are general subjects. To wit,
Cardiology is a speciality in medicine and orthopaedics is a speciality
in surgery. Even the regulation from page 8 onwards bears the heading 'Specialist Branch under Medicine and Surgery'. Cardiology finds its
place as a specialist branch under medicine. The relevant regulation
requires teaching/research
experience in medicine.
Contention is,
if any one who has
teaching/research
experience in Cardiology,
could he be said to have such experience in medicine ? In this context
we must recall regulation 4 which provides that 50% of the time spent
in recognised research after
obtaining the requisite
post-graduate
qualification shall be counted towards teaching experience in the same
or allied subject provided that 50% of the teaching experience shall
be the regular teaching experience. If research in allied subject can
be taken to satisfy the requisite experience, teaching experience in a
speciality
under the general head could not be put on an inferior
footing.
Undoubtedly, if the post is in a specialist department, the
requisite teaching/research experience will have to be in the speciality.
To illustrate, if one were to qualify for being appointed as Professor/
Associate Professor of Cardiology, his teaching experience must be in
'f.. Cardiology though his research experience could as well be in Cardiology or allied subject. A person having such experience in the general
subject medicine cannot qualify for the speciality. That it what distinguishes the speciality from the general subject. This becomes clear
from the fact that in a number of hospitals there may not be posts in
specialist branches and someone working in the general department
may be assigned to do the work of specialist branches. If a particular
hospital has not got Cardiology as a specialist branch, a Reader or
Assistant Professor in the Department of Medicine may be required
to look after Cardiology cases and teaching of Cardiology as a subject .
In that event he is certainly a Reader/ Assistant Professor in Medicine
teaching one of the subjects, viz., Cardiology which again forms part
of the general curriculum of the subject of medicine. Therefore, it is
not proper to divorce a specialist branch subject from the general subject. It cannot be seriously contended that medicine does not include
Cardiology.
To be qualified for the specialist branch of Cardiology,
the minimum academic qualification is M.D. (Medicine).
This would
clearly show that after acquiring the general qualification one can take
the specialist branch. If any other approach is adopted it would work
B
c
F
G
If
8
c
D
E
F
G
II
860
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1979] 2 S.C.R.
to the disadvantage of the person who while being posted in the Depart~
men! of Medicine, is asked to teach a subject which is necessary for
being taught for qualififying for M.D. but which can be styled
as
speciality. He would simultaneously be denied the teaching experience
in the subject of Medicine. An extreme argument was urged that in
adopting this approach it may be that somebody may be working in
different specialist branches such as
Neurology,
Gastroentrology,
Psychiatry, etc. and each one would qualify for being appointed as
Professor of Medicine without having even a tickle of experience on
the subject of general medicine. Th.is wild apprehension need not deter
us because it should be first
remembered that any one going into
specialiBt branch under medicine has to be M.D. (Medicine). Thereafter, if he wants to become a Professor in the specialist branch such
as Cardiology, the academic qualification required Is to hold a degree
of D.M. in the Specialist Branch. This becomes clear from a perusal
of the regulations. It is not necessary, therefore, to go into the dictionary meaning of the expression 'medicine' to determine whether it
includes Cardiology. The Medical Council of India, a body composed
of experts have in the regulations clearly manifested their approach
when they said that Cardiology is a specialist branch under medicine.
lpso facto, medicine includes Cardiology. It was not diBputed that one
qualifying for M.D. (Medicine) has to learn the subject of Cardiology.
And it must be remembered that the four experts aiding and advising
the Commission have considered teaching experience in Cardiology as
teaching experience in Medicine.
The counter-affidavit on behalf of
the Commission in terms states that medicine is a wide and general
subject and includes Cardiology whereas for the post of Professor of
Cardiology a further two years' special training in Cardiology or D.M.
in Cardiology after M.D. in Medicine has been laid down as a requisite
qualification by the Medical Council. It iB further stated that teaching
experience in Cardiology will make the person eligible for the post of
Professor of Medicine. That was the view of the experts who assisted
the Commission.
Incidentally it may be mentioned that Mr. V. M.
Tarkunde, learned counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 3 took serious
exception to giving any weight to the counter-affidavit because it has
not been sworn to by any expert aiding or advising the Commission or
by any officer or Member of the Commission but by an Upper Division
AssiBtant whose source of knowledge iB the legal advice tendered to
him. In paragraph 1 of the affidavit the deponent says that he has
been deputed by the Commission to file the counter-affidavit on their
behalf and as such he is fully acquainted with the facts deposed to in
the affidavit.
It is our sad experience that responsible authorities
avoid filing affidavits in courts when it behoves them to assist the Court
and facilitate the decision of the questions brought before the Court
•
•
'
•
•
M. c. GUPTA v. A. K. GUPTA (Desai, J.)
861
but on this account alone we would not wholly ignore the counterA
affidavit.
Some documents were brought to our notice showing that in State
University of New York at Buffalo, U.S.A. the Assistant Professor of
Cardiology is designated as Assistant Professor of Medicine. Further,
in the Agra University Calendar, Cardiology is included in the Department of Medicine.
Similarly it was also pointed out that the Department of Medicine in the University of Manchester includes Lecturer
in Cardiology.
Apart from this administrative arrangement, it could
not be seriously disputed that Cardiology is a specialist branch under
medicine and it could not be wholly divorced from medicine. Under
the general head 'medicine' number of subjects are to be taught, one
such being Cardiology. If a teacher is asked to teach Cardiology
as one of the subjects for general medicine, could he be at a disadvantage by being treated as having not acquired teaching experience
in
medicine? Even under general medicine., apart from medicine as a
subject, there are numerous other subjects and papers and there
would be one or more persons incharge of one or more subjects and
papers and indisputably each one
would be gaining experience in
general medicine. If general medicine is to be restricted only to the
paper on medicine, it would lead to a startling result, as startling as
it was sought to be urged when it was said that a person teaching
Neurology could not be said to be gaining teaching experience in
medicine.
The matter has to be looked at from this angle, viz., that
where general subject such as medicine or surgery is being dealt with
in a regulation, the specialist branch under it would be covered,
though not vice versa, because if one wants to hold a post in the
specialist branch he must be of necessity have teaching experience in
the specialist branch.
In reaching this conclusion the seniority list
maintained branch wise would hardly be helpful.
Therefore, it is
not possible to agree with the High Court that the subject of medicine
under the regulation is exclusive of the other subjects mentioned
therein and, therefore, does not include Cardiology .
B
c
D
E
F
The second contention which found favour wlth the High Court
G
was that the requisite teaching oc research experience must be acquired while holding the post set out in the regulation in that subject. In
other words, the view of the High Court is that the teaching/research
experience must be acquired while holding the post of Reader/ Assistant Professor in Medicine for five years in a Medical College. The
High Court placed the emphasis on the experience acquired while
H
holding the post. The relevant regulation requires teaching/research
experience as Reader/ Assistant Professor (which includes Lecturer)
A
B
G
D
E
F
G
H
862
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1979] 2 s.c.R.
in Medicine for five years in a Medical College. Regulation 4 has to
be read along with specific regulation.
Regulation 4 clearly shows
that 50% of the time spent in recognised research in the same or
allied subject will be given credit provided that 50% of the teaching
experience shall be regular teaching experience. The specific regulation prescribing the qualification will have to be read subject to the
general regulation prescribed under regulation 4 because the experience
qualification prescribed in specific
regulation must be calculated according to the formula prescribed in general regulation no. 4-.
The
specific regulation requires 5 years' teaching/research experience. In
calculating the research experience in the light of regulation 4, 2t
years' experience shall be specifically teaching experience and credit
can be given to the extent of 50% of the time spent in recognised
research as prescribed in the regulation, which experience can be in
the same subject, viz., the subject for which the recruitment is being
made or in allied subject. So far there is no dispute. The question
is : while acquiring research experience, is it incumbent that thtJ persBn
conducting research must also hold of necessity designated post in
the regulation ? Now, if general regulation 4 is properly analysed for
the purposes of computing research experience, the pre-requisite
is
that the research must be done after obtaining requisite post-graduate
qualification. It has no reference to the post held by the person engaged in research at the time of conducting the research.
The heading
is 'teaching/research experience'.
The dichotomy will have to be
applied to teaching and research experience for the purpose of computation.
So far as teaching experience is concerned, it must be acquired while holding the post specified in the regulation.
But to say that
holding of the post is a pre-requisite while conducting research is to
read in regulation 4 what is not prescribed thereunder.
The specific
regulation prescribing qualification will have to be read subject to general regulation 4 and not vice versa.
This also becomes manifest from
the fact that general regulation 4 also provides that 50% of the teaching experience shall be regular teaching experience meaning thereby that
if someone is engaged exclusively in research, he cannot claim to satisfy
the teaching experience qualification prescribed in the regulation. Reading speciJic regulation with general regulation 4, it emerges
that
teaching experience shall be acquired while holding the particular post
specified therein and the research experience can be taken into account if the person is engaged in research after obtaining post-graduate qualification and it has nothing to do with the holding of the
post.
One may be engaged as a research scholar and holds no teaching post. The research is hardly related to post though capacity for
research is directly related to academic attainment.
That has been
'
'
•
..
M. c. GUPTA v. A. K. GUPTA (Desai, J.)
863
taken care of.
Teaching it indisputably related to the post because a
higher post may entail greater responsibility for coaching in higher
classes.
This conclusion is reinforced by the language of general regulation 4 which permits recognised research under the Indian Council
of Medical Research which body may not have such hierarchical posts
of Lecturer or Assistant Professor or Reader. These three designations are to be found in teaching institutions and not in research institutions. If it were, therefore, to be held that even while acquiring
research experience one must hold the post of either Reader or Assistant Professor, it would discourage many persons conducting research
under the Indian Council of Medical Research. It is, therefore, not
possible to agree with the generalisation made by the High Court that
teaching/research experience to qualify for the post of Professor must
be acquired while workh1g as a Reader or Lecturer.
Having cleared the ground about the interpretation of requisite regulations, we must now turn to examine the two individual cases.
In re :Dr. M. C. G11pta.
The experience qualification of Dr. M.C. Gupta has been extracted
above.
There is no dispute between the parties that he was appointed
and was working as Reader in Medicine in S.N. Medical College, Agra,
from 28th July 1971 till 30th March 197 4 which was the last date by
which applications had to be submitted to the Commission.
This
·'<.. would give him a teaching experience o[ 2 years 8 months and 10
'Clays.
Dr. Gupta also claims teaching experience, being a Lecturer
in
Cardiology in the Department of Medicine, S. N. Medical College,
Agra, from 25th January 1965 to 19th July 1971, in the aggregate
period of 6 years, 6 months and 24 days.
There is a serious dispute
between the parties whether Dr. Gupta is entitled to get credit for
teaching experience while working as Lecturer in Cardiology. On the
view that we have taken that Cardiology is a specialist branch under
medicine and, therefore, a Lecturer in Cardiology could be said to be
a Lecturer in one of the subjects under general medicine and hence he
had requisite experience as Lecturer in Medicine.
However,
Dr.
Gupta ha:> produced a ccrtific~'.e issued by the Principal and Chief
Superintendent, S.N. Medical College & Hospital, Agra, dated 19th
September 1974 in which it is stated that 'Dr. Gupta joined the Department of Medicine as Lecturer in Cardiology on 25th January 1965
and continued till July 19, 1971 when he Was appointed as Reader in
Medical by Public Service Commission'. It is further certified by
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
B
864
SUPREME COUR,T REPORTS
[ 1979] 2 s.c.R.
the Principal & Chief Superintendent that 'Dr. Gupta was actively involved in patient-care, teaching of undergraduates and post-graduates
in general medicine in addition to conducting Cardiac Out Patient,
looking after cardiac beds and taking Cardiology lectures during his
tenure as Lecturer in Cardiology, as Cardiology forms a part of general
medicine in this college and there is no separate Department of Cardiology here'.
There is another certificate issued by Dr. K. S. Mathur,
Professor & Head, Department of Medicine (RD), dated 17th September 1974, in which it is in terms stated that Dr. Gupta was actively
involved in the patient care and teaching of undergraduates and postgraduates in General Medicine in addition to Cardiology during this
period.
Further, Dr. Gupta used to be the Senior Physician to ~!tend
to Emergencies of all medical cases on a particular day of week and
he looked after indoor beds of general medical units during Leave
arrangements.
He was also incharge of T.B. Clinic for a period of
one month. It was further stated that Dr. Gupta bad been assigned
'Special Clinics' to 5th year and 3rd year and 'Long Clinics' to !inal
year students from time to time in addition to Cardiac Clinics and
Cardiology lectures.
He was also taking regnlar classes in clinical
methods for third year and has also been called upon to teach them
kidney diseases.
There are further references in the certificate which
we may ignore for the time being.
Dr. Gupta also produced a certificate issued by Professor of Clinical Medicine, S. N. Medical College,
Agra, which, inter a/ia, states that Dr. Gupta was associated from time
to time with teaching and patient care in general medicine and be
was also actively associated with teaching of post-graduates in generat
medicine in the way of clinical conferences, seminars, etc.
He was
also incharge of beds in general medicine in Professors' Unit in the
leave vacancy.
A notice dated 24th October 1970 issued by
the
Deparmtent of Medicine, S. N. Medical College, Agra, was
also
brought to our notice in which it was shown that Dr. Gupta was to be
the Senior Physician on call on every Tuesday.
It would thus appear
that even if Dr. Gupta was designated as Lecturer in Cardiology for
the period 25th January to July 19, 1971, undoubtedly he was teaching general medicine to undergraduate students and to some post-graduate students also and this is testified by persons under whom he was
working.
It would be unwise to doubt the genuineness of these certificates.
Therefore, even apart from the fact that Cardiology is a pert
of medicine, the teaching experience acquired while holding the post of
Lecturer in Cardiology, was teaching experience in subject which substantially formed part of general medicine and over and above the same,
be was also working as Lecturer in Cardiology and, therefore, the Commission was amply ju.stifled in reaching the conclusion that Dr. Gupta
•.
·-r·
,....
'
M. c. GUPTA v. A. K. GUPTA (Desai, l.)
86 5
had the requisite teaching experience qualification and the High Court
A
was in error in quashing the selection of Dr. M. C. Gupta on this
ground.
Mr. L. N. Sinha, learned counsel, also wanted us to examine the
research experience of Dr. M. C. Gupta when he pointed out that Dr.
Gupta had published as many as 40 research papers in leading medical
journals in India during 10 years he worked as Lecturer/Reader and
that he had also been a recognised appraiser for the thesis submitted
for the award of Doctor of Medicine.
Mr. Sen seriously objected to
our examining this contention because Dr. Gupta himself never claimed
B
any credit for research experience.
Undoubtedly, the counter-affidavit
on behalf of the Commission refers to having taken into consideration
the research experience of Dr. Gupta but the affidavit is blissfully vague
c
on the question which research experience was examined by the Comm1ss1on.
Therefore, we would not take into account the research experience claimed on behalf of Dr. Gupta.
In re : Dr. R. N. Tandon.
We have already extracted above the teaching/research experience
qualification claimed on behalf of Dr. Tandon.
Mr. Kacker, learned Solicitor General requested us to start examining each item of
experience commencing from the last one as first.
Before we proceed
to examine each item of experience claimed by Dr. Tandon, one contention raised on behalf of the respondents must be dealt with. It
- was urged that wherever the regulations prescribe teaching or research
experience, it must be one acquired in an institution in India or in
any foreign institution recognised by the Medical Council of India or
the Govermnent of India.
It is not necessary to examine this argument in depth because the point could be said to have been concluded
by A. K. Mukherjee's case, wherein same set of regulations came in
for consideration of this Court and in which it was seriously contended that the teaching experience specified in regulations in
question
must be acquired in teaching institutions in India and, therefore, any
teaching experience in a foreign country cannot be taken into consideration. This contention was in terms negativated simultaneously
negativing the other extreme submission that teaching experience from
any foreign institution is good enough, and after referring to sections
12, 13, and 14, it was held that those which are good enough for the
aforementioned sections, are good enough for the teaching experience gained therefrom being reckoned as satisfied.
The matter undoubtedly was not further pursued by this Court because the final decision wus left to the Commission.
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
.E
F
G
H
866
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 2 s.c.R.
Proceeding in the order suggested by Mr. Kacker it is claimed !pat
Dr. Tandon worked as Assistant Professor of Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo from 29th July 1969 to 30th October
1974. This includes some period subsequent to the last date for
. submitting application to the Commission and we would exclude (hat
part of the experience claimed by Dr.
Tandon.
Therefore,
Dr.
Tandon claims to be working as Assistant Professor of Medicine from
29th July 1969 to 30th March 1974 which was the last date for submitting the application to the Commission. Computing the period,
he would have teaching experience of four years, six months
and
one day.
It was also said that even if teaching experience in foreign teaching
institution is to be taken into account, they must be some recognised
institutions of repute and not any institntion outside the territory of
India.
That of conrse is true.
In A. K. Mukherjee's case the pertinent observation is as under :
"Teaching institutions abroad not being ruled out, we
consider it right to reckon as competent and qualitatively
acceptable those institutions which are linked with, or are
recognised as teaching institutions by the Universities and
organisations in Schedule II and Schedule III and recognised by the Central Government under s. 14. Teaching
institutions as such may be too wide if extended all over
the globe but viewed in the perspective
of
the
Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956, certainly they cover institutions
expressly embraced by the provisions of the statute. If those
institutions are good enough for the important purposes of
ss. 12, 13 and 14, it is reasonable to infer they are good
enough for the teaching experience gained therefrom being
reckoned as satisfactory."
But it could hardly be urged with some confidence that the State University of New York at Buffalo would not be an institution of repute.
An attempt was made to refer to the Schedules, not upto date, to the
Act published by the Medical Council of India showing recognised
institution·s.
In fact, the· Schedules set out recognised degrees, certificates and diplomas of various Universities and certain examining Boards
of U.S.A. being recognised by the Medical Council of India.
This
brochure hardly helps in coming to conclusion one way or the other. It
refers to degrees and the Boards awarding the degrees and diplomas. It
does not refer to teaching institutions. It nowhere shows that the certificates and diplomas issued by the State University of New York at
•.
'•
,>,
•
;
M. c. GUPTA V. A. K. GUPTA (Desai, J.)
867
A
Buffalo would not be under one of the American Boards and, therefore,
it is not recognised. Such a contention was not even urged before the
High Court or specifically in affidavits so that factual material could
have been more carefully examined. The experts aiding and advising the Commission must be quite aware of institutions in which the
teaching experience was acquired by Dr. Tandon and this one
is
a reputed University.
B
It was, however, contended that there is no proof in support of
the submission that Dr. Tandon was working as Assistant Professor
of Medicine at State University of New York at Buffalo, commencing
C
from 29th July 1969. Dr. Tandon has produced a certificate, Annexure ·cA. 5 issued by Associate Professor of Medicine, Director Angiology Department, Buffalo General Hospital dated 3rd June 1971,
In which it is stated that Dr. Tandon is an Assistant Professor of
Medicine in the Department of Medicine on the full time staff of the
Buffalo General Hospital having an annual salary of £ 15,000. Mr.
Tarkunde urged that this certificate does not show that Dr. Tandon
was appointed effective from 29th July 1969.