AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.—The petitioners in these proceedings under Article 226 claimed suitable directions to the Respondents to issue them
degree certificates. They have all successfully completed undergraduate studies in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, the first respondent
(hereafter called the ""AIIMS"").
By an order made immediately after the conclusion of hearing, the following operative directions were issued; however due to paucity of time the
reasons were not spelt out; I am proceeding to do so by the present order.
The All India Institute of Medical Sciences was established in 1956 with the objective of improving competence of medical practitioners and
achieving high standard of medical education, both at the Post Graduate and Undergraduate levels. Another important objective was the promotion
of Medical Research with the goal of obtaining self-sufficiency in post-graduate medical education. The All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act,
1956 (hereafter ""the Act"") also declares that the AIIMS is an Institute of National importance.
It is an undisputed fact that all petitioners underwent the course of study and qualified in the examinations duly conducted by the AIIMS. They
are all entitled to receive degrees. Their grievance in these proceedings is that the respondents have inordinately delayed issuance of the degree
certificates, jeopardizing their further academic career''s. A large number of these students claim to have performed exceedingly well in the
examination procedures, entitling them to admission in foreign Universities, particularly in the United States of America for persuading post-
graduate qualifications. It is averred that they have completed the requirements of necessary qualification in examination for the grant of the
Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG)"" certificates. These petitioners scored 99%, which is the highest possible
score a candidate can achieve in the tests held for the purpose.
The present petitioners, were admitted in 2001 in the five and half year''s MBBS Course. The final professional examination ended in
December, 2005 after which they underwent a years'' compulsory internship which included three months Rural Health Programme.
It is not in dispute that for the year 2006 and for some time earlier due to internal problems, the AIIMS annual Convocation could not took
place. The practice of AIIMS was to handover the degrees to the new graduates in Convocation Functions held for that purpose. It is alleged that
in the absence of a degree certificate, the petitioners aspiration of pursuing Post Graduate Medical Studies in the United States would be
imperilled; the guidelines of the ECFMG require that candidates should produce certificates of academic qualifications i.e MBBS degrees. It is
claimed that these procedures and formalities are to be completed by Ist September, 2007 after which the ECFMG, proceeds to verify the
documents within six weeks'' time frame. The names of candidates are thereafter short-listed; they are personally interviewed alongwith original
documents and then the admission is completed.
The petitioners allege that they have repeatedly yet unavailingly represented to the respondents for timely issuance of the degree certificates.
Copies of their representations made singly as well as collectively are produced on the record.
On 31.8.2007, a Division Bench of this Court while issuing notice recorded as follows:
Some of the Doctors who have passed MBBS examination from AIIMS are before this Court by filing writ petition. The same is mentioned before
us for urgent listing. However, as it appears, the said writ petition has not been cleared by the Registry as yet for listing. Therefore, the earliest
point of time when the said writ petition could be listed is 3rd September, 2007.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, states before us that some of these students are applying for Post Graduation Residency
Course in USA and while submitting their applications they are required to attach therewith the MBBS degree. But they have been provided the
MBBS degrees by the Director AIIMS which according to the counsel appearing for the AIIMS is legal and valid. Before issuing the same to the
concerned students, legal opinion to that effect was also obtained. Since it is the stand taken by the Director AIIMS that the said degrees are valid
in the eyes of law, we take that statement on record.
Learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 & 5, however, state that respondents No. 2 and 5 do not like to put their signatures on the
Degrees issued by the Director, through Dean (Examination), but they would independently sign separate degrees and hand over to the students
within two days. The aforesaid degrees signed by the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 5 shall be handed over to the concerned students
within two days from today.
The aforesaid order has been passed keeping in mind the urgency shown and to safeguard the interests of the students and taking into account that
some of them have applied for Post Graduation Residency Course in USA and also taking into account that respondent No. 4 Director-AIIMS
has no objection to this course of action.
List before the appropriate Bench on 3rd September, 2007. The said Bench shall take note of the order which is passed today.
A copy of this order be given dasti to the parties, under the signatures of the Court Master.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
AUGUST 31, 2007
VEENA BIRBAL, J.
Subsequent to the above order, the fourth Respondent filed a set of documents; Respondent No. 5 the President of All India Institute of
Medical Sciences, who was represented on 31.8.2007, also caused set of documents to be produced. They were taken on record during the
course of hearing.
It is contended by Mr. Walia that a fair reading of the order dated 31.8.2007 would show that as far as the petitioners claim for issuance of
degree certificates is concerned, there is in fact no dispute. The Respondents no where deny the petitioners'' entitlement to these degree
certificates; what is perceived as a hindrance is the position indicated by the Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 5.
Learned Counsel contended that once the entitlement and eligibility of the students who qualify in the examination after completing the course,
is admitted and at any rate is not in dispute, AIIMS cannot in law withhold the degree certificates on account of internal bickerings, by its
authorities. It was urged that the present impasse has led to an impossible situation whereby two sets of degrees, one signed by the Director and
the other signed separately by respondents 2 to 5 have been issued. This has already led to baffled queries as to authenticity of documents by
some foreign institutions.
Mr. Vikas Singh, learned ASG who appeared on behalf of the Director, AIIMS, arrayed as Respondent No. 4 in these proceedings
contended that the Staff Council Resolution of AIIMS had authorized the Director to authenticate the degrees. Learned Counsel relied upon an
inter se correspondence exchanged between the Director, particularly the letter dated 20.8.2007 written to the President, All India Institute of
Medical Sciences requesting that 49 degree certificates should be signed by him as a special case. Counsel relied upon a reminder in that regard
dated 29.8.2007. It was submitted that the President declined to accede to the request by his letter dated 28.8.2007. That letter stated that the
posting/appointment of Dr. Sandeep Aggarwal, as Registrar did not have approval of Governing Body of All India Institute of Medical Sciences;
and since the degree certificates contained the signatures of the said Dr. Aggarwal, according to the President the degrees were illegal. The
President, therefore, expressed his inability to sign on such illegal documents.
Learned Counsel relied upon Section 21 of the Act and submitted that the Director alone is empowered to authenticate all instruments. A
degree certificate, it is contended, is an instrument as it is a formal or legal document in writing.
Learned Counsel contended that the past practice based upon Chapter 17 of a non-statutory handbook, cannot govern the issue. That
stipulated that degrees should bears the signatures of the President, Director, Dean and the Registrar. Learned Counsel submitted that Section 21
would have an overriding effect; a degree certificate is an ""instrument"" which the Director alone is authorized to authenticate and execute. Learned
Counsel relied upon the meaning of instrument. The definition of ""instrument"" in Black''s Law Dictionary is
a formal or legal document in writing, such as contract, deed, will, bond or lease....
Anything reduced to writing, a document of a formal or solemn character, the writing has a mean, of affording evidence....
Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned Counsel for the first Respondent and Ms. Mukta Gupta, counsel for the second respondent i.e the Dean, Academic
Studies reiterated their position expressed before the Division Bench that the said respondents would not like to affix their signatures on the
degrees issued by the Director, but would independently sign separate degrees. It was contended that the stand of the fifth respondent, is also
endorsed by the second respondent is reflective of the correct legal position because the 49 degree certificates, signed by Dr. Sandeep Aggarwal
cannot be considered as valid or legal documents. Learned Counsel contended that according to Chapter 17 of the Handbook, each degree had
to bear the signature of the Registrar of AIIMS. Counsel submitted that there was a contradiction in the position of the Director vis-�-vis the
Registrar''s post. The Director had by an order dated 6.3.2007 communicated to the then incumbent Registrar, Shri V.P. Gupta that his
appointment to the temporary post of Registrar had ended on 25.2.2007 by efflux of time. If that was correct, there was no occasion for the so-
called appointment or posting of Dr. Sandeep Aggarwal to a non-existent post. Counsel relied upon the Minutes of the 137th Governing Body of
AIIMS held on 24.1.207 which had, inter alia, resolved that status quo ante should be maintained with regard to discharge of functioning of the
Registrar. It was submitted that Minutes of this Meeting were confirmed on 7.5.2007; those decisions were also reiterated.
Learned Counsel submitted that even, otherwise, according to the Regulations governing AIIMS the appointing Authority for the post of
Registrar, (being a Group-A category of post), was either the Governing Body or the President; in any case it was not the Director. Since Dr.
Sandeep Aggarwal was nominated by the Director to officiate as Registrar, such an appointment/posting was without authority of law, and invalid.
In these circumstances, Respondents 2 and 5 were justified in withholding in declining to sign the 49 degree certificates which bore the signatures
of the said Dr. Aggarwal.
Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 relied upon an order of this Court dated 19.6.1998 in CWP No. 2896/1998 and submitted that no
direction should be issued. The Court had declined to entertain a writ petition, claiming advancement of the convocation. The writ petitioner sought
the relief to be able to secure his degree certificate for its protection before the ECFMG.
The undisputed facts from the above narrative are that all the petitioners, after pursuing their course of study in the AIIMS and qualifying in the
examinations held by it, are entitled to be issued the degree certificates. Section 24 of the Act provides by a non-obstante Clause, (overriding the
other laws) that the AIIMS shall have the power to grant medical degrees, diplomas and other academic degrees under the Act. Thus there is no
dispute that the petitioners are entitled to such degrees u/s 21. The present dispute is not really one between them and the AIIMS but an entirely
unavoidable one, the result of an unfortunate difference of opinion between the Director and the President of AIIMS. The Director of AIIMS
appears to have approached the President on 20.8.2007, enclosing 49 degrees which bore his signatures as well as that of Dr. Aggarwal; the
President declined to put his signatures on those degree certificates, though neither he nor the second respondent dispute the entitlement of the
petitioners to receive them. It has fallen to this Court to resolve that deadlock.
Before proceeding to consider the merits of the rival contentions it would be necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions namely, Section
21 in Chapter 17 in the Handbook. Section 21 reads as follows :
Authentication of the orders and instruments of the Institute.- All orders and decisions of the Institute shall be authenticated by the signature of
the President or any other member authorized by the Institute in this behalf and all other instruments shall be authenticated by the signature of the
Director or any other officer of the Institute authorized in like manner in this behalf.
It is asserted that degree certificates being instruments can be authenticated by the Director alone or any person authorized by him. To counter this
argument, Respondents 2 & 5 rely upon Chapter 17(I) of a Handbook compiled in 1979. The relevant provisions of that Handbook are extracted
below:
CONVOCATION OF THE INSTITUTE
Each year a convocation of the Institute shall be held sometime during the month of February, when the Degree of the Institute shall be awarded to
the successful candidates.
I. General
Every candidate for the award of the degree must appear in person at the Convocation to receive the degree, unless the Director for special
reasons permits him/her to take the degree in absentia on payment of Rs. 10.
The degrees shall bear the signatures of the President, Director, Dean and Registrar. The Registrar shall issue notice to each member of the
Convocation showing the programme and the procedure there, at least three weeks in advance of the date of the Convocation. All the members
attending the Convocation shall appear either in their prescribed academic gown as herein laid down, or in one appropriate to the degree to which
they have been admitted by their respective universities.
The delay in issuance of the degree certificates, in this case due to the position of the fifth respondent that the certificates have been signed by
some one who is not authorized to do so. The President has declined to sign the certificates because the person who has signed them as Registrar,
Dr. Sandeep Aggarwal was not appointed in accordance with the AIIMS Regulations. This Court was taken through the Minutes of Meeting
dated 24.1.2007 which had, inter alia, dealt with a previous transfer order of the then Registrar and further recorded that the status quo ante
should be restored. There is no serious dispute about the fact that the said incumbent Registrar, Shri V.P. Gupta was issued a letter by the Director
on 6.3.2007. A copy of that letter was produced in the compilation filed on behalf of the fifth respondent. It reads as follows:
MEMORANDUM
Shri V.P. Gupta had been appointed vide Appointment Order dated 25.02.2002 by means of a temporary appointment to temporary post of
Registrar. His appointment order stipulated that the post is temporary but is likely to continue on year to year basis. This temporary post has not
been extended after 25.02.2007. His temporary appointment to the temporary post of Registrar has come to an end on 25.02.2007 by efflux of
time.
Sd/-
(Dr. P. Venugopal)
Director
The above event was apparently noticed by an order of this Court in WP� No. 1790/2007 which had sought for removal of the said
Registrar. The Court disposed off the petition recording that no relief could be granted in the light of the said order, by its order dated 7.3.2007.
During the course of hearing it was submitted that review proceedings have been preferred for recall of that order.
The subsequent Minutes of Meeting dated 7.5.2007 confirmed the earlier decisions. A conjoint reading of all these show that the Governing
Body at the relevant time in January, 2007 required restoration of the status quo ante in regard to the Registrar''s post; at that time the incumbent
had been transferred. The situation, however, altered with the issuance of the letter dated 6.3.2007.
Though a great deal of stress was placed upon the text of the letter dated 6.3.2007 to say that the post of Registrar, even according to the
Director did not exist and, therefore, the degree certificates could not have been signed by Dr. Aggarwal; I am un-persuaded with the submissions.
The conundrum apart, the fifth respondent''s stated position is that the Registrar has to necessarily sign the certificates.
To my mind, the entire controversy is really a non-dispute. The validity, legality and justification of the action dated 6.3.2007 by which the then
Registrar was intimated about his appointment having ended by efflux of time and as well as the validity of the action of the Director of AIIMS,
nominating Dr. Sandeep Aggarwal on 12.3.2007 to look after the work of Registrar, AIIMS till further orders are not before this Court. They
have been raised as a collateral argument to justify the refusal by Respondent No. 5, to sign the degree certificates.
One of the established principles of public law is that even if the holder or incumbent of, a public post may not possess the right to occupy it,
due to legal requirements concerning the post not being satisfied or his being disqualified from occupying it, yet, to prevent confusion in the conduct
of public business, his acts, by the application of de-facto doctrine cannot be questioned co-laterally. As long as he continues to act till removal, his
actions are binding on the public at large and deemed proper. The State of Haryana Vs. The Haryana Cooperative Transport Ltd. and Others, ;
Gokaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 147.
On a careful analysis of the facts in this case it is apparent that what the Respondent No. 5 (as also Respondent No. 2 are now doing) is to
characterize the documents i.e the 49 degree certificates as illegal. This to my mind cannot be done at least in such manner as to jeopardize the
future and career prospects of the petitioners and other similarly situated students. The act of signing of a degree certificate is merely a formal or
ministerial one; it is not a substantive ""act"". It is an un-deniable fact that the litigation between the previous Registrar and Institute is pending. Till
that is resolved, or a decision is taken in accordance with law, the said two respondents by their unilateral action cannot refuse to sign the degree
certificates. They cannot assign to themselves the role of judging the status of Dr. Sandeep Aggarwal, in this contextual background. In the case of
the second respondent his behaviour is strange to say the least. It was not denied by counsel that even though the said respondent expressed some
reservations on 21.7.2007 about the certificates, nevertheless he proceeded to sign them on 27.7.2007. He cannot now be allowed to contend
that such degree certificates are invalid or illegal.
Although some arguments were made about the exclusive power of the Director to sign the degree certificates and the inapplicability of
Chapter 17 of the Handbook on account of its not being Statutory, there was no serious dispute that all these years the four functionaries
mentioned in the handbook, i.e. the President, the Director, the Dean (Academics) and the Registrar have affixed their signatures. This indicates a
consistent pattern of behaviour by the AIIMS as well as an established convention. The Court should in my opinion be slow to sanction any radical
departure from it. The present differences between the respondents should not be an occasion to characterize such tradition as illegal; I am of the
opinion that it is not illegal.
28.In view of the above discussion, I find that the action of the respondents 2 and 5 in refusing to associate themselves in not signing the degree in
question, is arbitrary and unsustainable. The de-facto doctrine is sufficient to cater to the present situation vis-�-vis Dr. Sandeep Aggarwal.
Accordingly, it is hereby declared that the said 49 degree certificates cannot be discarded as illegal by the fifth respondent. In keeping with past
precedent of the President having to affix his signatures, should do so. A similar exercise would have to be undertaken in the case of any other
student who is in urgent need of his certificate, and can show such urgency to the respondents.
Institutions are designed to be permanent, and grow from strength to strength. Although it is not within my ken to advise the respondents, one
cannot but help noticing that the students who graduate from institutions, including AIIMS continue to be inseparably identified with it; in that sense,
its imprint continues, expands and endures. On the other hand, differences of the kind which this Court had to deal with are ephemeral; from a
larger perspective, they are meaningless. The excellence of institutions and their endurance lies in the individuals who are its products; the
differences which seem so sharp to the actors involved, are forgotten in the sands of time.
The operative directions pronounced in Court are hereby reiterated; they are to the following effect:
Issue Rule. Ms. Mukta Gupta waives notice of rule.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to succeed; following directions are issued:
i) Forty nine degree giving certificates forwarded to Respondent No. 5 i.e the President of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, containing
the signatures of Dr. Sandeep Aggarwal, shall be deemed to have been affixed on analogy of the de facto doctrine.
ii) Respondent No. 5 shall affix his signatures on the said certificates as well as such other certificates which may be necessitated on account of
students who have completed their course having to go on account of security (sic securing) admissions in any other Universities on disclosing
urgency after the same are signed in a similar manner as these forty nine degrees certificates.
iii) The signatures appended by Dr. Sandeep Aggarwal in his capacity as Registrar shall be deemed as authentication on behalf of the Institute only
for the purposes of the present case. This would not preclude any of the parties from raising concerns on the issues relating to his postings or
appointment in any other Forum.
Mr. Gupta submits that today the 5th respondent is out of town and is in Chennai. He further submitted that in view of the conclusions above, the
respondent would cooperate and affix his signatures if the degree certificates are forwarded to him within 24 houRs. Learned Counsel for
Respondent No. 4 states that these 49 certificates would be delivered to the Office of the President at Nirman Bhawan forthwith to facilitate their
onward transmission to Chennai so that they are delivered to the concerned recipients. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5 stated that if this
course is adopted the signatures would be appended and the certificates returned back by tomorrow evening.
The petition is allowed in the above terms.