AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.P. Sethi, J.—The petitioner who is already a Professor of Paeiatric Gastroneterology and Head of Department of Gastroneterology and Hepatology in the P.G.I., Chandigarh, has staked his claim for the post of Professor in Gastroneterology with prayer for quashing the schedule Annexure P/8, advertisement Annexure P/4 and the information sheet containing qualifications (Annexure P/5) by which the qualifications of D.M. with 12 years experience has been prescribed as the minimum qualification for the aforesaid post of Professor of Gastroneterology. He has further prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to re-advertise the post after prescribing the qualifications as allegedly prescribed for the said seat by the Central Government and recommended by the Medical Council of India by making eligible the qualification of M.D. with 14 years experience as the qualifications for the aforesaid post. It has further been prayed that the petitioner be considered for appointment against the said post of Professor and that the respondents be restrained from conducting the interviews for the purposes of considering the candidates for appointment to the post of Professor of Gastroenterology.
The petitioner has averred that he started his medical education in Munich (West Germany) and got M.D. Degree in the year 1966. He registered himself for obtaining his Post Graduate Degree in Medicine in London (UK) and was awarded the M.R.C.P. by the Royal College of Physicians in the year 1970. He claims to have worked in the Department of Medicine and Gastroenterology for nearly seven years in London and was awarded accredition in Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology. On the basis of his experience, the petitioner has claimed to be highly qualified in the field of Gastroenterology. He is also a fellow of Royal College of Physicians (FRCP) at London (UK). He is also a fellow of the National Academy of Medical Sciences in India (FAMS) which fellowship was awarded to him in the year 1985. He joined the P.G.I, at Chandigarh in the year 1976 and since then he has been working in the Department of Gastroenterology. He has been discharging his duties in the first instance as Associate Professor of Gastroenterology and then Professor in Paediatric Gastroenterology to which post he was appointed after a litigation which . was initiated by him by way of C.W.P. No. 3717 of 1983. After the retirement of Professor S.K. Mehta on 2.6.1994 the petitioner was appointed as many as 191 publications at the National/International level to his credit besides having read 220 papers of various National/International Conferences. The P.G.I. advertised the post of Professor of Gastroenterology vide advertisement No. 3/94 attached with the petition as Annexure P/4 which according to him did not mention the qualifications prescribed for being eligible for appointment to the afore did post. He obtained the requisite information sheet (Annexure P/5) from the respondents by which the impugned qualifications have been prescribed. It is submitted qualifications have been prescribed. It is submitted that the action of the respondent-Institute in providing the Post Graduate qualification of D.M. only as an essential qualification is totally against the regulations besides being discriminatory. Regulation 32 is alleged to have been violated.- The prescription of the qualifications of D.M. is stated to be totally frustrating the very object which is intended to be achieved by making the appointment to the post of Professor. It is submitted that the Governing Body of the respondent-Institute that the Government Body of the respondent-Institute had specifically stated that besides D.M., an equivalent degree recognised is sufficient qualification. It is claimed by the petitioner that he is possession equivalent degree and is thus entitled to be considered for appointment to the aforesaid post of Professor.
In the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, it is submitted that the writ petition was mis-conceived and liable to be dismissed as the qualification prescribed and approved by the P.G.I, have all been deliberated upon and duly considered by the Academic Committee, Governing Body and, the Institute Body of PGIMER, Chandigarh. It is submitted that PGIMER has been established by the P.G.I, of Medical Education and Reserach, Chandigarh Act, 1966. The Institute has framed its regulations in the year 1967. It has also framed Rules under the aforesaid Act. All the qualifications laid down for faculty posts are formulated under the provisions of the P.G.I. Act read with Regulations and Rules. It is submitted that PGIMER has the sole right and the authority to prescribe the qualifications necessary for a particular post. It is submitted that no manifest injustice has been caused to the petitioner and the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is contended that even if the petitioner was considered eligible for being appointed as Professor in Gastroenterology there would not be any change either in his status, pay scale or other service benefits. The petitioner is also stated to be above the age limit as per the advertisement (Annexure P/4) prescribed in the information sheet (Annexure P/5) which is 50 years as the date of birth of the petitioner is 15.1.1938. The petitioner is not entitled to relaxation of the Rules with respect to his age as there do not exist exceptional circumstances requiring relaxation in his favour. The qualifications which have been challenged by the petitioner have been laid down for Professors in various fields and not only in Gastroenterology. Similar qualifications have been prescribed and are applicable to departments of specialities in Cardiology, Gastroenterology, Nephrology, Hepatology, Neurology, Endocrinology and Pulmonary Medicine. None of the candidates who have applied for being appointed as Professor in the above noted subjects are aggrieved by the qualifications and it is only the petitioner who has sought to impugn the said qualifications. As the petitioner does not possess the prescribed requisite qualification of D.M. Gastroenterology or equivalent degree recognised by the Medical Council of India, his petition is liable to be dismissed. The fact of petitioner having joined the P.G.I, in the year 1975 and his being appointed as Associate Professor of Gastroenterology in the year 1977 has not been denied. The petitioner is admitted to have worked in the Department of Gastroenterology from 3.10.1977 to 10.3.1983 where after he was appointed as Associate Professor of Hepatology in the year 1991 where he work upto 17.4:1991. It is .admitted that the petitioner was appointed as Professor of Paediatric Gastroenterology. The filing of C.W.P. No. 3717 of 1983 has also been admitted. The postgraduate degree of D.M. (Gastroenterology) has been prescribed after thorough consideration/deliberations by eminent academicians in the Academic Committee of the PGIMER, Chandigarh keeping in view the aims and objects of the PGIMER and has been prescribed after following the procedure prescribed under Rule 7(5) read with Regulations 23 and 32. The Central Health Service Rules, 1982 arc stated to be not applicable for appointment to various teaching/faculty posts of P.G.I. It is contended that recommendations of the Medical Council of India, 1989, as relied by the petitioner were not applicable or binding upon the aforesaid teaching/faculty posts at the P.G.I. However, those recommendations were considered and kept in view while finalizing the present, qualifications and experience for which the petitioner is aggrieved: The petitioner Was never appointed in the higher speciality of Gastroenterology on the basis of two years special training in the speciality after requisite M.D. He initially joined as Associate Professor of Gastroneterology and accepted the new post of Professor of Hepatology. It is submitted that large number of D.M. students are available in the country was also taken note of by the Academic Body/Governing Body while prescribing he aforesaid degree as essential qualification for the post. The super speciality of Gastroenterology in P.G.I. is stated to be the only super speciality in the country allotted by Government of India for which special grants are funded for its development and to achieve its aims and objects. It is submitted that the petitioner was brought to the P.G.I, not on the basis of his merit but on contact basis.
Respondent No. 3 has resisted the writ petition on similar grounds as incorporated in the preliminary objections. The academic qualifications possessed by the petitioner have been disputed and it is submitted that respondent No. 4 is more meritorious and is possessing better qualifications. It is submitted that the petitioner had earlier also applied for the post of Professor but was not called even for the interview. It is contended that after the petitioner taking over as Head of the Department of Gastroenterology the department has deteriorated administratively on account of the alleged inefficiency of the petitioner who is alleged to be hardly sitting in the Department of Gastroenterology. It is submitted that the petitioner has been sitting all the times in the Department of Hepatology. It is submitted that the post of Professor of Hepatology was also advertised alongwith the post of Gastroenterology but the petitioner did not apply for the said post. The other claims of the petitioner have been denied on similar lines as are detailed in the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
The petitioner has filed two separate replications to the replies filed on behalf of respondents reiterating and explaining the pleas raised by him in his writ petition.
We have heard the lengthy arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It has been stated by the petitioner that action of the respondent-Institute in prescribing post-graduate qualification of D.M. is only an essential qualification is totally against the Regulations and is also discriminatory.
It is acknowledged position of law that the employer is entitled to prescribe qualifications which he may think necessary in view of the peculiar needs of the particular post of service. The discretion of appointment of rightman for the right job should be left relatively unfettered to the employer. The prescription of higher educational qualifications if considered better or more advantageous for the particular post cannot be interfered with by the Court unless the same is shown to be mala-fidely prescribed or being against the provisions of law of the Rules applicable. The Courts are not the experts and normally do not venture to hold enquiry for determining as the whether the particular qualification is the exact equivalent or is higher or superior to the one prescribed by the employer.
The Courts are expected not to express opinions with respect to academic matters regarding equivalence of university degrees. The questions relating purely to academic matters should be left to be adjudicated and decided by the experts. If there is no allegation of mala-fide against the experts who prescribed the qualifications, it would be proper and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of the academic matters to experts who are technically more familiar with the problems than the Courts generally can be. After referring the judgments delivered in ''Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India : AIR 1987 S.C. 990, Liberty Oil Mills and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; M/s. Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India and others, ; Railroad Commission of Texas v. Rowan and Nichols Oil Company 85 Law Ed. 358 State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and others, and K. Jagadeesan Vs. Union of India and others, , the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. S.L. Dutta and another, held:
"....In our opinion, the High Court was in error in making the impugned order. As has been laid down more than once by this Court, the Court should rarely interfere where the question of validity of a particular policy is in question and all the more so where considerable material in the fixing of policy are of a highly technical or scientific nature." It was further observed that secured employer in the modern society of technical equipment should be left to the experts which cannot be adjudicated by the Judges and Lawyers of the Court.
To the same effect are the judgments of the Supreme Court in The University of Mysore and Another Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and Another, , Som Dutt v. State of Haryana (1983) 3 SLR 141 and Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Nchugar 1981(1) SLR 469.
The prescribing of D.M. qualification can otherwise also be not held to be either unreasonable or contrary to the policy for getting the best qualified talent for the super speciality in the prestigious institute like the P.G.I, with the advance of science and technology besides availability of experts in super speciality the Institute was justified in prescribing the qualification of D.M. and M.Ch. in various specialities. None excect the petitioner has made any grievance regarding the prescription of the aforesaid qualifications. The argument as projected in the petition regarding the prescription of the higher qualification is therefore without any basis and is liable to be rejected
It has next been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was eligible to be appointed as Professor of Gastroenterology for, his having equivalent degree of M.D. with fourteen years experience. A perusal of Annexure P/4 would show that for various super specialities the requisite qualifications have been prescribed as:
" A postgraduate qualification e.g. D.M/M. Ch. of an Indian University or an equivalent degree recognised as such by the Medical Council of India."
We have perused the recommendations of the Medical Council of India and the recommendations on the qualifications required for appointment of persons to the posts of teachers in Medical Colleges and attached hospials for Undergraduate and Postgraduate teaching which does not equate the degree of M.D. with the degree of D.M. It, however equates the degree of M.R.C.P. possessed by the petitioner to be treated at par with the degree of MD/Ms if awarded prior to 11.11.1978. The specific words used in Annexure P/5 are" equivalent degree" and not equivalent qualification. The qualification cannot be substituted to the degree which is intended to be possessed by the person applying for the post of Professor of Gastroenterology.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Central Health Service Rules, 1982 which prescribes the qualification for the post: of Gastroenterologist as;
"D.M. (Gastro-Enterology), M.D./M.R.C.P. in Medicine with two years special training in a department of Gastro-Enterology."
It is submitted that as the petitioner is possession equivalent degree of M.D. with two years training in the Department of Gastroenterology, he is entitled to be considered for the post of Professor of Gastroenterology. The argument appears to be mis-conceived on the face of it in asmuch as it has no where been conceded by the contesting parties that the aforesaid Rules of 1982 are applicable in the case of P.G.I. The respondents have further contended and submitted that the petitioner did not possess two years special training in the department of Gastroenterology. The experience gained by the petitioner cannot be equated with the training contemplated by the aforesaid Rules. Similarly, reliance on Annexure P/7 which are recommendations of the Medical Council of India regarding the qualifications required for appointing a person to the post of teachers in medical colleges and attached hospitals for undergraduate and post-graduate teaching is also mis-placed. The petitioner has sought his qualification to be equated with D.M. on the basis of two years training with M.D. whereas infact he does not possess the Indian degree of M.D. but has been equated with the degree of M.D. on the basis of the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India, as referred to herein above. The petitioner is, therefore, held to be not possession the degree of D.M. in Gastroenterology or an equivalent degree recognised as such by the Medical Council of India. The respondents have specifically stated that the Medical Council of India recognises only the degree conferred by National Board of Examination in various specialities.
It has next been contended that as the qualification has not been prescribed in accordance with the P.G.I. Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the same cannot be made a basis for selection to the post of Professor in Gastroenterology. It is contended that the qualifications were not prescribed by the Academic Committee and were modified by the Sub-Committee without associating experts. It is submitted that the impugned qualifications have been prescribed not by the experts but by bureaucrats. We have perused the record of the respondents and the averments made by them in the reply filed. It is submitted that the matter regarding the review of qualifications and experience etc. for appointment to various faculty posts at the P.G.I.M.E.R. was considered vide agenda item No. 8 by the Academic Committee of PGIMER in its meeting held on 18.7.1993 wherein it was decided as under:
"The Committee had a detailed discussion on the amended educational qualifications and experience for appointment to various faculty posts in different departments/specialities at PGIMER, Chandigarh. The qualfications, teaching, research and experience as prescribed in the recruitment rules of the AIIMS, New Delhi, Medical Council of India and Central Government Services were kept in mind while drafting the proposed qualifications and experience for recruitment to various faculty posts of the Institute. The D.M./M.Ch. qualifications were made essential for super specialities except in those where such qualifications are not available for which an ''equivalence'' or 2 years specialised training be accepted as an alternative except that in the case of super specialities of Paediatrics, 1 year training in the super speciality in a centre for excellence abroad will be acceptable as persons possessing M.D. Paediatrics and D.M. in the super speciality are not available. This provision will be reviewed after five years. The Committee then deliberated on the educational qualifications and teaching/research experience for appointment to the various faculty posts for each department/speciality as given in the agenda item. Because of paucity of time, the whole item could not be discussed. Sub-Committee, consisting of the following was constituted for the said purpose to make recommendations for various categories of posts in different departments and the specialities which will be then placed at the next meeting of the Academic Committee for necessary approval.
Prof. B.N.S. Walia Chairman 2. Prof. B.K. Sharma Member 3. Prof. K.S. Chugh Member 4. Prof. S.K. Mehta Member 5. Prof. R.C. Mahajan Member"
After the decision of the Academic Committee, the matter is stated to have been deliberated in depth by the Sub Committee and its recommendations were placed before the Academic Committee for its consideration and approval in its meeting held on 28.12.1993 vide agenda No. 14. The Academic Committee approved the education qualifications and experience for appointment to various faculty posts except the qualifications laid down for the post of Dean of the Institute. The recommendations of the Academic Committee are stated to have been placed before the Governing Body in its meeting held on 25.2.1994 alongwith other agenda items, where a decision was taken that the matter may be considered/reviewed by the Sub Committee and the recommendations of the Sub Committee be again placed before the Governing Body for its consideration and decision. The Sub Committee again considered the matter in its meeting held on 28.2.1994 and in its meeting held on 10.3.1994 and 2.4.1994 approved the schedule showing the scale of pay, method of recruitment and qualifications for recruitment to various teaching/faculty posts. The matter was finally considered by the Governing Body vide agenda Item No. 41 which approved the qualifications and experience in its meeting held on 12.7.1994. After hearing the counsel for the parties, minutely examining the pleadings and going through the record, we have come to the conclusion that the qualifications have been prescribed strictly according to P.G.I. Act, Rules and the Regulations by the competent bodies of the Institute. We are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that qualifications were tailored and prescribed by bureaucrats alone. The facts stated herein above would clearly show that the qualifications were not prescribed in a casual manner but were the result of considered deliberations by experts.
We are not impressed with the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the advertised qualifications were against the qualifications which had been approved by the Institute Body.
No ground is made out for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the schedule, Annexure P/8, Advertisement (Annexure P/4) and the Information Sheet (Annexure P/5).
It is well settled proposition of law that no writ of mandamus can be issued unless a right is shown to be existing in the person seeking relief and a corresponding obligation attributed to the respondents. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as legally protected right before the one suffering from a legal grievance can ask for a writ of mandamus. A person can be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. The petitioner has not been in a position to show the existence of any of the conditions justifying the issuance of a writ of mandamus as prayed for by him.
The petitioner has also not been in a position to show us the alleged manifest injustice which is likely to be causal by the impugned action requiring our interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is already a Professor in paediatric and Gastr oenterology and Head of the Department of Gastroenterology. The selection of respondent No. 4 or of any person would not in any way cause any manifest injustice to the petitioner.
In view of the fact that no fundamental or legal right of the petitioner has been violated and that the impugned qualifications have been prescribed strictly in acccordance with the provisions of law, we are not inclined to interfere with. We are also not satisfied with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he possesses the equivalent qualifications and was entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Professor In Gastroenterology. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.