C.D.Gupta, Dr vs State and Others

What is required to be interpreted in this petition is the scope and ambit of paragraph 11.4 of the Statute prepared by the University of Jammu

for appointing Internal Examiners governing Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) and Master of Surgery (M.S.) examinations. This paragraph is being

reproduced below :

There shall be four examiners in. each subject two external and two internal to be appointed by the Vice Chancellor out of a panel of examiners

proposed by the Board of Studies concerned"".

All teachers in the concerned subject in the college concerned who fulfil the eligibility criteria for appointment as postgraduate examiners shall be

appointed as internal examiner according to the following criteria :

The senior most teacher/ HOD in the subject will always act as Internal Examiner while all the other eligible teachers will rotate as second internal

examiner every one year"".

A perusal of this statute makes it apparent that the senior most teacher/ Head of Department in the subject is to always act as the first internal

examiner, while the other teachers will rotate as second internal examiner every one year. The petitioner submits that this statute has not been

observed in letter and spirit.

This petition was admitted on 15th Feb., 2001.

The University has filed its reply. The State Government has also taken its stand. The objections filed by respondents no. 1 and 4 are treated as

counter. It is basically the information which is given by respondents no. 1 and

4, which is to guide the University in the matter of picking up the second internal examiner. It is the case of respondent no. 1 that a panel of second

internal examiner for MD in General Medicine examination was prepared in the year 1993. Following doctothers were included in the panel:

Dr. Virinder Gupta

Dr. M.B. Wadhwa

Dr. Vijay Gupta

Dr. C.D. Gupta"".

It is further case of respondent no. 1 that the doctothers mentioned at S. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had already been appointed as Second Internal

Examiners, and therefore, the doctor who was supposed to act as the second internal examiner was the petitioner. It is stated that as the petitioner

was on Commonwealth Medical Fellowship, which was sanctioned vide Govt. Order No. 527frg of 1993 dt.: 28.9.1993, he could not be

appointed as Second Internal Examiner. It is thus submitted that as the turn of the petitioner had come earlier and he being not available, it will be

presumed that he has lost his chance to act as Second Internal Examiner. It was in these circumstances the offer went to Dr. Virender Gupta at

No. 1 in the panel. It is further stated that in MayJune session, Dr. MS Wadhwa, who was after Dr. Virender Gupta, was given the chance to act

as Second Internal Examiner. It is further stated that for examination conducted on Aug. 2000, Dr. Vijay Gupta who was next to Dr. MB

Wadhwa was picked up to act as Second Internal Examiner. Thus, what is stated is that as Dr. CD Gupta had a chance and as he was not

available. Therefore he has lost his right to act as Second Internal Examiner. It is accordingly submitted that he has to wait for his turn being in

rotation.

The learned counsel for the University submits that the examination have already commenced and any change in the panel at this stage would not

be conducive to the holding of said examination.

The panel which was prepared for the year 1994 was operated when the petitioner was not in India. As to whether the petitioner was called

upon to take up the assignment of Second Internal Examiner is not apparent from the stand taken by respondent no.1. The purport of Regulation

noticed above is that there should be an actual offer made to the person concerned and if he declines only then, the panel can further be rotated. A

person who was not in the station at the particular time and who had no opportunity to avail of the benefit of Regulation referred to above, cannot

be said to have availed of the benefit of rotation. The interpretation placed by respondent no. 1 cannot be accepted. It is accordingly held that from

1994 onwards, no valid opportunity byway of rotation was given to the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondent authorities that he was given

an opportunity in the year 1994, is a stand which cannot be accepted. This petition as such is allowed. The respondents would operate the panel

so that the petitioner gets a chance to become the second internal examiner as per the aforementioned Regulation for the examination to be

conducted in terms of communication dt. 7th Sept., 2000 copy whereof has been placed on record as annexure ""C"".

Disposed of accordingly.