AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.—Challenging the order, dated 28.3.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 395 of 2011,
thereby rejecting the claim made by the applicant/petitioner to extend his service as Assistant Professor after 62 years by counting his service on or
after 1.4.2011 as per Office Memorandum No. 11016/1/2009-CS-V, dated 24.4.2009, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
seeking the aforesaid relief. It is the case of the petitioner that he passed M.B.B.S. Degree in the year 1975 from Madras Medical College and
subsequently, he passed M.S. Degree in General Surgery in the year 1985 and thereafter, he was appointed as Part Time Specialist in the
Specialty of General Surgery at Employees State Insurance Hospital, K.K. Nagar, Chennai, and later, as per proceedings dated 20/31.5.1996, his
appointment to the post of Specialist Grade II in the specialty of General Surgery at the aforesaid hospital was approved by the seventh
respondent.
It is also the case of the petitioner that while so, the Employees State Insurance Corporation has taken a decision to set up its own Medical
College/P.G. Institute/Training School for Para-medical staff and an application was submitted to the Central Government on 30.6.2008 to start a
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science and Research at K.K. Nagar, Chennai and based on the approval, which was granted pursuant to the
application made on 30.4.2010 by the Employees State Insurance Corporation Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science and Research, K.K.
Nagar, Chennai, the Medical Council of India permitted the Employees State Insurance Corporation to start P.G. Courses, viz., M.D. Course
(OBG) four seats on 13.2.2011, M.D. (Pediatrics) two seats on 21.2.2011, M.D. (General Medicines) one seat on 28.3.2011, M.S. (General
Surgery) two seats on 29.3.2011 and M.D. (Anesthesiology) two seats on 5.4.2011 and regular courses have commenced on 2.5.2011.
It is the further case of the petitioner that in the meanwhile, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, by order dated
16.9.2008, enhanced the age of superannuation of Specialists of Teaching Sub-cadre of Central Health Service, who have not been occupying
administrative positions, from 62 years to 65 years and the same was subsequently clarified vide order dated 24.4.2009 clarifying that Central
Health Service Officers of teaching sub-cadre, who are occupying administrative positions, would have an option of seeking appointment to
teaching position in case they wish to avail the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation upto 65 years. It is also the case of the petitioner
that pursuant to the circular issued by the Additional Commissioner, Employees State Insurance Corporation Hospital, K.K. Nagar, Chennai,
seeking option for being designated as Teaching Faculty as per the norms of the Medical Council of India for the proposed Employees State
Insurance Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences Research from those who are willing, the petitioner has submitted his option for being
designated as Specialist-cum-Assistant Professor.
It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter, the third respondent, vide memo dated 23.9.2009, informed him that the Director General,
Employees State Insurance Corporation, had approved the designation of such specialists as Specialist-cum-Assistant Professor in their respective
specialty and the proposed Employees State Insurance Corporation Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science and Research, Chennai, and in the
list of such candidates, he was shown as the first person as Specialist-cum-Assistant Professor in the Department of General Surgery.
It is also the case of the petitioner that Section 17 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 provides for inspection of examinations for granting
approval by the Medical Council of India, and the Medical Inspector, who was appointed u/s 17(1) of the said Act, inspected the General Surgery
Department of the aforesaid Corporation on 10.12.2010 for assessment and the Inspection Committee has found that the General Surgery
Department in the Employees State Insurance Corporation Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science and Research, K.K. Nagar, Chennai, had
one Professor, one Associate Professor and three Assistant Professors, among whom, the petitioner''s name was shown as Sl. No. 1 with total
experience of 13 years and only after considering the assessment report, the Medical Council of India granted approval on 29.3.2011 to start
M.S. (General Surgery) in the aforesaid Institute.
It is the further case of the petitioner that the Joint Director (Admn.), Employees State Insurance Corporation, Chennai, as per Memorandum,
dated 14.12.2009, informed the petitioner that he is due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., on 31.3.2011 and hence, the
petitioner has submitted a representation, dated 3.2.2011, to the fifth respondent stating that he has been redesignated as Specialist-cum-Assistant
Professor, which was also approved and accepted by the Medical Council of India and further requested to treat him as Specialist-cum-Assistant
Professor, Employees State Insurance Corporation Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science and Research, K.K. Nagar, Chennai, and extend
his service upto the age of 65 years as per the Central Government Health Service norms. As there is no response from the fifth respondent, the
petitioner was constrained to file O.A. No. 395 of 2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the original application by holding that the applicant/writ
petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the Office Memorandum, dated 24.4.2009, issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, as he
has not fulfilled the ingredients required for qualifying to the post of Assistant Professor under the Medical Council of India Regulations and he is
also a non-Teaching faculty of the respondents therein and hence, he is not eligible to get the benefit of enhancing the age of superannuation of the
Specialist Teaching Sub-cadre of the Central Health Services from 62 years to 65 years and the respondents 1 to 5 therein, Medical Council of
India and the Employees State Insurance Corporation have justified in stating that the petitioner''s service belonged to non-teaching Specialist
relying on the Medical Council of India Regulations and also the Memorandum dated 23.9.2009 issued by the Employees State Insurance
Corporation. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
We have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
We have gone through the entire materials placed on record.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner took us through various provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 with
regard to selection of Post Graduate students to undergo various Post Graduate Medical Courses and the power to make regulation as per
Section 33 read with 20 of the said Act, viz., the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulation 2000, in order to justify the claim of the petitioner
that he is entitled to the benefit of continuance in service up to the age of 65 years.
It is an admitted case that on 17.7.2007, the Employees State Insurance Corporation has taken a decision to start a Post Graduate Institute of
Medical Science and Research at Employees State Insurance Corporation, K.K. Nagar, Chennai, for the academic year 2011-2012, pursuant to
which, an application was submitted to the Medical Council of India on 30.6.2008 for grant of permission and after completing the formalities,
initial affiliation was obtained on 31.7.2008, which was later renewed on 8.7.2009 and 6.7.2010 and provisional affiliation was granted on
23.5.2011 and the Post Graduate Courses commenced on 2.5.2011, by which time, the petitioner, who was initially appointed in the year 1991 as
a Part Time Specialist and thereafter, as Full Time Specialist in the year 1996, and subsequently appointed as Co-ordinator between the Medical
Council of India, Director of Medical Education and Dr. MGR Medical University, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on
31.3.2011, i.e., at the age of 62 years.
It is seen from the perusal of the records that before starting the Post Graduate Courses in the Employees State Insurance Corporation Post
Graduate Institute of Medical Science and Research, K.K. Nagar, Chennai, that is, on 2.5.2011, the petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2011.
It is the grievance of the petitioner that even though the Headquarters of Employees State Insurance Corporation re-designated him as
Specialist-cum-Assistant Professor, vide letter dated 23.9.2009, and in spite of the fact that the Government came out with a clarification by
issuing an Office Memorandum, dated 24.4.2009, enhancing the age of superannuation of Central Health Service Officers of Teaching Subordinate
Cadre, who are occupying the administration position and seeking appointment to teaching position, up to 65 years, no orders have been issued in
favour of the writ petitioner extending his service beyond 62 years, though proposals have been sent for such continuation and extension of
services up to 65 years.
Therefore, according to the petitioner, in view of the redesignation, the benefit of continuance of service up to the age of 65 years, as per the
order, dated 16.9.2008, as well as the order, dated 24.4.2009, issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, thereby
enhancing the age of superannuation of Specialists of Teaching Sub-cadre of Central Health Service Doctors, who are not occupying
administrative positions, from 62 years to 65 years, he is entitled for enhancement of the age limit and the aforesaid orders are applicable to the
Employees of the State Insurance Corporation.
Considering the above said circumstances of the case and after hearing the arguments of the learned senior counsel and the counsel
representing various respondents in this writ petition, we are of the opinion that though the petitioner fulfilled the first part of the Regulation with
regard to qualification, but with regard to the other part, he was doing work on the administrative side and not attending the teaching work till the
date of his retirement and therefore, he is not entitled to have the benefit of the above said orders of the Central Government or even the
redesignation acquired from the Medical Council of India as Assistant Professor. Therefore, to get the benefit of continuance of service up to the
age of 65 years, it is a condition precedent to do the job of teaching. When the petitioner has not satisfied the above condition of teaching till the
date of his retirement, he cannot claim the benefit of the above proceedings/orders of the Central Government. Hence, we are unable to appreciate
the contentions and submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the above, we agree with the reasons adopted by the Central Administrative Tribunal in rejecting the claim made the petitioner
seeking enhancement of age up to 65 years and we see no reason to take a different view from the one taken by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the
writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Connected M.P. is closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.