http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 19  

PETITIONER: GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANOTHER, ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR. R. MURALI BABU RAO & ANR., ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/03/1988

BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) RAY, B.C. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR 1048            1988 SCR  (3) 173  1988 SCC  (2) 386        JT 1988 (1)   569  1988 SCALE  (1)542

ACT:      Andhra Pradesh  Medical &  Health Service Special Rules 1982-Challenge to  panel prepared under rule 8 of-To fill up promotional post  of Professor  of Cardiology with requisite five years’  teaching experience  under rule  5  having  the alternate qualification  specified in cl. (b) of Annexure 11 to Rules, eligible for promotion to the post of Professor of Cardiology.

HEADNOTE: %      These appeals  and the  special  leave  petitions  were directed against  the  judgment  and  order  of  the  Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, quashing the panel of names prepared by  the State  Government under  r. 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical & Health Service Special Rules, 1982 to fill up the promotional post of Professor of Cardiology as on 1st July, 1983,  reckoning the  teaching experience  of all  the Assistant Professors  in that  super speciality  in order of seniority,  holding   that  the   Assistant  Professors   of Cardiology in  different medical  colleges in  the State who had the requisite five years’ teaching experience under r. 5 of the  Rules having  the alternate qualification in cl. (b) of Annexure  II to  the Rules were eligible for promotion as such, and  directing the State Government to draw up a fresh panel after  considering the  claims of  all such  Assistant Professors of  Cardiology treating  them as  possessing  the requisite teaching  experience in  terms of  r.  5  for  the promotional post  of Professor of Cardiology as on 1st July, 1983.      There were  four vacancies  in the post of Professor of Cardiology. On 1st July, 1983, the State Government prepared a  panel  of  all  Assistant  Professors  of  Cardiology  in Government  Medical   Colleges  in   the  State  having  the requisite teaching experience under r. 5 after obtaining the post-graduate qualification as specified in the Annexure II, and included  in the panel the names of Dr. G. Subramanayam, Dr. A.  Rajagopala Raju  and  Dr.  Soghra  Begum,  Assistant Professors of  Cardiology, who  had on  the crucial date-1st July, 1983  five years’  teaching experience after obtaining their post-graduation  degree in DM (Cardiology) as enjoined

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 19  

by r.  5 read  with the  first proviso thereto, and by order dated the  17th August,  1983, promoted  them to the post of Professor of Cardiology. 174      The respondents  Dr. R.  Murali Babu Rao and Dr. G. Sai Gopal then  moved the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal assailing the  impugned order  of promotion,  characterising the  action  of  the  State  Government  in  the  matter  of computation of  five years’  teaching experience after post- graduation  degree   in  DM  (Cardiology)  as  being  wholly arbitrary and irrational.      The appellant  C.H. Umesh  Chandra came up in appeal as the view  expressed by  the Tribunal  prejudicially affected him. He  had obtained  his post-graduate  degree  in  MD  in Medicine in  December, 1975  and  his  second  post-graduate degree in  DM (Cardiology)  in April,  1980. In  view of the fact that he had obtained his second post-graduate degree in DM (Cardiology)  in April,  1980, he  sought to  support the stand of  the Government  as  he  had  a  better  chance  of promotion to the post of Professor of Cardiology.      After these  matters were  heard and  the judgment  was reserved by  this Court,  a similar  question came up before the Court  in State of Orissa v. Dr. Sivsanker Lal Bajoria & Anr.,- Civil  Appeal No.  4456  of  1986  by  Special  Leave granted to  the  State  Government  of  Orissa  against  the judgment and  order of  the High  Court, evolving  a rule of substantial compliance,  and therefore,  these matters  were re-listed. In  the Civil  Appeal No. 4456 of 1986, the Court issued notice to the Medical Council of India to clarify its stand as  to the eligibility of Assistant Professors/Readers in  Cardiology   to  the   promotional  post   of  Associate Professor/Professor in  Cardiology and  in particular to the import of  the term  ’two years special training’ within the meaning of  Regulation 5(2)(b) of the Indian Medical Council Regulations, 1970,  framed under s. 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act,  1956. The  Court desired  the  Indian  Medical Council to  specify the  particular institution  where  such training was  imparted. An  affidavit sworn  to by Assistant Secretary on  behalf of  the Medical  Council of  India  was filed, placing its point of view.      Dismissing the appeals and the special leave petitions, the Court ^      HELD: The issue involved was of far-reaching importance to the  entire medical  profession as  similar  problem  was faced by  the  State  Governments  in  promoting  Readers  / Associate  Professors   in  a  speciality  to  the  post  of Professor  in  that  speciality  in  the  medical  colleges. [179E-F]      In these  cases, the  entire controversy was due to the failure of the 175 State  Government  to  give  the  benefit  of  the  teaching experience gained by the Assistant Professors after they had obtained their  post-graduate degree  in MD/MRCP in Medicine under cl  (b) of  Column 5  in serial  No 17 of Annexure II. [187G]      Rule 4  of the Rules in terms speaks of the eligibility of such  class of  Assistant Professors  of  Cardiology  for promotion to  the post of Cardiology who possess five years’ teaching experience. The expression ’teaching experience’ as defined in  r. 5  speaks  of  ’teaching  experience  in  the speciality concerned  in a  medical college  or an institute recognised by  the Medical  Council of India after obtaining post-graduate qualification  as specified  in Annexure  II’.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 19  

The  words   used  are   ’after  obtaining   post   graduate qualification’, it does not speak of the second postgraduate qualification.  Rule   5,  therefore,   takes  in  both  the qualifications specified  in clauses (a) and (b) of Column 5 in serial No. 17 of annexure II, namely, (a) DM (Cardiology) and (b)  MD/MRCP in  Medicine with  two years’  training  in Cardiology. On the crucial date, 1st July, 1983, cl. (b) was very much there and the Government was bound to consider the claims of  the aforesaid  respondents  like  other  officers belonging to  that class  before drawing up a panel under r. 8. There  was no warrant for the submission that since under r. 9(2),  an Assistant  Professor with  the  requisite  five years’ teaching  experience after obtaining his second post- graduate degree  in DM  (Cardiology) would have preferential claim over  those having  the qualification mentioned in cl. (b) i.e.  MD/MRCP in  Medicine with  two years’  training in Cardiology, the  State Government was entitled to ignore the claims  of   the  latter  class  altogether.  On  its  plain construction, r.  9(2) is  a rule  of  preference  and  has, therefore, to be applied at the stage of making appointments to the post of Professor of Cardiology and not while drawing up a  panel under  r. 8. The Government was obviously misled by  the   wrongful  assumption   (i)  that  since  alternate qualification in  cl. (b)  of Column  5 in serial ’No. 17 of Annexure II  had been  deleted by  GOMS No.  789 dated  12th December, 1983,  it was not necessary for it to consider the claims of  the aforesaid  respondents and  others  similarly situate  in   drawing  up   a  list  of  eligible  Assistant Professors of  Cardiology, and  (ii) that such officers were rendered ineligible  by reason  of r.  9(2) and,  therefore, their claims  needed not to be considered. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in quashing the impugned panel prepared by the  State Government  under r.  8 of  the Rules  and  in directing the  Government to  prepare a  panel afresh  after considering the  claims of  all the  Assistant Professors of Cardiology with  five years’ teaching experience after their post-graduation  in   MD/MRCP  in  Medicine  with  2  years’ training in Cardiology. [189C-H; 190A-B] 176      There was  no substance whatever in the contention that the alternate  qualification in  cl. (b)  being in  conflict with the  recommendation of  the Medical  Council of  India, must be  deemed to have been replaced by implication and was non-est w.e.f.  31st May,  1977. The Government had no doubt the recommendations  of the  Council, conveyed by the letter of the  Secretary dated  26th April,  1978, that  after 31st May, 1977,  for all  teaching posts  higher  than  Tutor  in higher   specialities    i.e.   Cardiology/Neurology/Gastro- Enterology/Thoracic Surgery/  Neuro Surgery/Plastic Surgery/ Paediatric Surgery/ Urology, the candidates must possess the post-graduate qualification in the speciality concerned i.e. DM/M.Ch. after  MD/MS or  other equivalent qualification, as might be  approved by  the Council  from time  to time.  The letter also  went on  to say that the existing qualification MD/MS or an equivalent qualification with two years’ special training in  a recognised  training centre in the speciality concerned, would  cease to  be sufficient  qualification for appointment to  the aforesaid teaching posts from that date. Nevertheless, the  Government failed  to appreciate that the recommendation of  the Council  was only  recommendatory and could not  override a  rule framed under the proyiso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. The panel had to be drawn up by the State Government  strictly in  conformity with  the rules of recruitment made  under the  proviso to  Art. 309 and not on the basis of the recommendation of the Council. [190C-F]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 19  

    As was  manifest from the affidavit filed by the Indian Medical Council,  the Council is only a recommendatory body. Constituted under  section 3  of the Act, the Indian Medical Council is  an expert body intended and meant to control the minimum standards of medical education and to regulate their observance. A  fortiori, the  recommendations  made  by  the Council  or   the  Regulations   framed  by   it  are   only recommendatory and  not mandatory. It is not for the Council to prescribe  qualifications for  recruitment  to  posts  of Professors. Readers  and Lecturers;  it can  only  lay  down broad  guidelines   therefor.   Such   qualifications   have necessarily to  be prescribed  by the framing of Rules under the proviso  to Art.  309. The  right to  be considered  for promotion is  a condition  of service  and it  can  only  be regulated by  a rule  framed under  the proviso to Art. 309. The Medical  Council in  its affidavit  accepted that  there were no  special guidelines  laid down  for Cardiology,  and asserted  that  some  Universities/Institutions  might  have prescribed  the   syllabus.  The  contention  of  the  State Government and the other appellants that the recommendations of the  Medical Council  as conveyed  by the  letter of  the Secretary  dt.   26th  April,   1975,  rendering   Assistant Professors of Cardiology, having the alternate qualification of 177 post-graduate degree  in MD/MRCP in Medicine, ineligible for promotion to the post of Professor of Cardiology even though they had  the requisite  five  years’  teaching  experience, appeared to be wholly misconceived and unwarranted. [190G-H; 191E-H; 192A]      The present  case was concerned with the meaning of the expression ’teaching  experience’ occurring  in r.  5 of the Rules, and  with the  class of  officers  who,  after  their appointment as  Assistant Professors of Cardiology on having obtained post-graduate  degree in  MD/MRCP had been teaching the subject  Cardiology  for  years  together.  Indeed,  the alternate qualification  specified in cl. (b) of column 5 in serial No. 17 of Annexure II takes in this class of officers and makes them eligible under r. 5. On the crucial date, 1st July, 1983,  cl. (b)  was still there and the Government was bound to consider the claims of such officers before drawing up a panel under r. 8. [193C-E]      Emphasis was  laid by  counsel for the State Government and other  appellants on  the words ’with two years training in  Cardiology’   with  the  submission  that  none  of  the respondents  had  the  requisite  training.  The  expression ’special training’ is defined in r. 7 as the work done by an Assistant Professor  in the  concerned recognised  unit  and exclusively devoted  to the  speciality. The  question  then arises  for  the  applicability  of  r.  7,  there  are  two conditions to  be  fulfilled,  firstly,  there  must  be  an institution set up either by the Medical Council of India or by the  Government or  Universities exclusively  devoted  to imparting teaching  in the  different courses of Cardiology, and  secondly,   such  an   institution  should   have  been recognised by  the Government.  There  was  no  material  on record to  establish that there was any such recognised unit either in  the State  of Andhra  Pradesh or  elsewhere. That apart,  it  could  not  be  appreciated  why  the  Associate Professors, Readers,  Assistant  Professors  of  Cardiology, teaching  Cardiology  in  the  medical  colleges  for  years together, should  not be regarded as having special training in Cardiology  within the  meaning of cl. (b) of column 5 in the serial  No. 17 of Annexure II. Any other view would lead to a  very anomalous  situation. It  would be  a travesty of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 19  

justice if  the officers  belonging to  the class  like  the respondents-representationists Dr.  R. Murali  Babu Rao  and Dr, G.  Sai Gopal,  Assistant Professors  of Cardiology with five years’  teaching experience after their post-graduation in MD/MRCP  in Medicine  as on  the 1st July, 1983, were not empanelled by  the  State  Govt.  under  r.  8  to  fill  up vacancies in  the post  of  Professor  of  Cardiology,  even though they  possessed the requisite qualifications under r. 5 of  the Rules.  It must  be remembered  that the alternate qualification in  cl. (b),  namely MD/MRCP  in Medicine with two years’ training in 178 Cardiology was  still there  and it  was  not  open  to  the Government to  ignore the  same merely  because  it  was  in conflict with  the recommendation  of the Medical Council of India, as conveyed in the letter of the Secretary dated 26th April, 1976. [193F-H; 194A-E]      There     were     many     distinguished     Assistant Professors/Readers/ Associate Professors of Medicines in the medical  colleges   in  the   different   States,   teaching Cardiology as a subject, who had gained sufficient expertise and knowledge  in the  different branches of Cardiology, and it    would     be    unfortunate    if    such    Assistant Professors/Readers/Associate Professors  of  Medicine  were, merely because  they were  MD/MRCP in  Medicine,  considered ineligible for  appointment to  the  post  of  Professor  of Cardiology, even  though they  had  the  requisite  teaching experience in  the many  branches of Cardiology for the last 15 to 20 years in the medical colleges. In view of this, the expression ’five years’ teaching experience’ occurring in r. 5 of  the Rules  as well  as the  phrase  ’with  two  years’ training in Cardiology’ in cl. (b) of column 5 in serial No. 17 of  Annexure II  of the  Rules, must  receive  a  liberal construction. The  experience gained  by them while teaching in different  branches of  Cardiology should  be treated  as sufficient to  meet the requirements of r. 5 of the Rules as well as  of cl.  (b). The  Court expressed the hope that the Medical Council of India, the Union Government and the State Governments as  also the State Medical Councils would give a second thought  to the  problem and try to evolve a solution to the  problem by  which the  right of  such persons  to be considered  for  promotion  to  the  post  of  Professor  of Cardiology could be kept preserved without allowing any fall in the standards of further education. [196H; 197A-D]      State of  Madhya Pradesh v. Km. Nivedita Jain, [1981] 4 SCC 296  and Union  of India  & Ors.  v. S.B.  Kohli & Anr., [1973] 3 SCR 117, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal Nos. 5723- 5724 of 1985 etc.      From the  Judgment and  order dated  22.2.1985  of  the Andhra  Pradesh   Administrative  Tribunal,   Hyderabad   in Representation Petn. No. 1041 and 1417 of 1983.      P.P. Rao,  G.L. Sanghi, R. Venkataramani, R.A. Perumal, R.K. Gupta,  B. Kanta Rao, K. Ram Kumar and A. Subba Rao for the appearing parties. 179      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      SEN, J.  These three  appeals  and  the  special  leave petitions are directed against the judgment and order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 22nd February, 1985  quashing the  panel of names prepared by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 19  

State Government  under r. 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical & Health  Service   Special  Rules,   1982  to   fill  up  the promotional post  of Professor of Cardiology as on 1st July, 1983 reckoning  the teaching experience of all the Assistant Professors in  that super  speciality in order of seniority, holding that  the  Assistant  Professors  of  Cardiology  in different  medical   colleges  in  the  State  who  had  the requisite five  years teaching  experience under r. 5 of the Rules having  the alternate  qualification  in  cl.  (b)  of Annexure  II   were  eligible  for  promotion  as  such  and directing the  State Government  to draw  up a  fresh  panel after  considering   the  claims   of  all   such  Assistant Professors of  Cardiology treating  them as  possessing  the requisite teaching  experience in  terms of  r.  S  for  the promotional post  of Professor of Cardiology as on 1st July, 1983. That turns on the meaning of the expression ’two years training in  Cardiology’ as specified in cl. (b) of column 5 in serial no. 17 of Annexure II to the Rules prescribing the qualifications for  the post of Professor of Cardiology. The Tribunal was  of the  view that such Assistant Professors of Cardiology were  entitled to  have the  benefit of  teaching experience grained by them as such after obtaining the post- graduate degree in MD/MRCP in that speciality on the crucial date 1st  July, 1983  when the State Government purported to prepare a  panel under r. 8 of the Rules. The issue involved is  of   far-reaching  importance   to  the  entire  medical profession  as   similar  problem  is  faced  by  the  State Governments in  promoting Readers/Associate  Professors in a speciality to  the post  of Professor  in that speciality in the medical colleges.      The matters  were heard a long time back and closed for judgment, but  then a similar question arose in Civil Appeal No. 4456  of 1986  State of  Orissa  v.  Dr.  Sivsanker  Lal Bajoria & Anr., and therefore the matters were re-listed. By order dated  12th December,  1986 this Court granted special leave to the State Government of Orissa against the judgment and order  of the  Orissa High  Court  evolving  a  rule  of substantial compliance.  But learned counsel for the parties in these matters stated that they had made their submissions on merits  and desired  that the  Court  should  proceed  to judgment.      At the  very outset, we wish to place on record that in Civil Appeal  No. 4456  of 1986 we had on 29th October, 1986 issued notice 180 to the  Medical Council of India to enable it to clarify its stand as  to the eligibility of Assistant Professors/Readers in  Cardiology   to  the   promotional  post   of  Associate Professor/Professor of  Cardiology and  in particular  as to the import  of the  term ’two years special training’ within the meaning  of Regulation  5(2)(b) of  the  Indian  Medical Council Regulations,  1970, framed under s. 33 of the Indian Medical Council  Act, 1956.  We desired  the Indian  Medical Council to  specify the  particular institution  where  such special training  is imparted  It  would  be  profitable  to reproduce the  relevant averments  in the affidavit sworn by the Assistant  Secretary on behalf of the Medical Council of India placing its point of view:           "With  reference   to  the  question  whether  any           syllabus has  been prescribed  for further studies           in Cardiology  is  concerned,  I  state  that  the           Council is  a regulatory  body which  has its  own           rules under  the Act.  It does  not prescribe  any           syllabus which is within the jurisdiction of every           University and  medical institutions.  The Medical

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 19  

         Council of  India only prescribes broad guidelines           for  training   in  post-graduate/  post  doctoral           courses  leading   to  post   graduation  in  D.M.           (Cardiology),  period   of   study,   conduct   of           examination etc;  true  copy  of  the  said  broad           guidelines  which   will  cover   post  graduation           courses is  annexed herewith. It may be submit ted           that  there   are  no   special   guidelines   for           Cardiology. However  it  is  submitted  that  some           Universities/Institutions  might  have  prescribed           the syllabus.                  With   reference  to  the  second  question           whether further training/instructions are imparted           in   any    college/   institution/university   or           hospital,  I   submit  that   various  departments           attached  to   various   colleges   have   started           imparting post  graduation courses after obtaining           permission from the Medical Council of India. Till           this day,  a list  of such  institutions which are           imparting such  recognised post  doctoral training           in Cardiology is given below:                1. Madras Medical College, Madras (Madras                University)                2.  Post   Graduate  Institute   of   Medical                Education and  Research, Chandigarh  (P.G.I.,                Chandigarh)                3. All  India Institute  of Medical  Science,                New Delhi. 181                4. G.B. Pant Hospital (Delhi University)                5. G.S.V.M.  Medical College,  Kanpur (Kanpur                University)           Colleges/Institutions  which   have  already  been           approved for conducting D.M. courses in Cardiology           are as under:                Permission accorded (STILL TO BE RECOGNISED)                1.   Osmania    Medical   College,   (Osmania                University, Hyderabad)                2.   Gandhi    Medical   College,    (Osmania                University, Hyderabad)                3. Armed  Forces Medical College, Pune (Poona                University)                4.   Kasturba    Medical   College,   Manipal                (Mangalore University)                5.  Bangalore   Medical  College,  Barlgalore                (Bangalore University)                6. S.C.B.  Medical  College,  Cuttack  (Utkal                University) (Permitted in Sept., 86)                7.  Grant  Medical  College,  Bombay  (Bombay                University)                8. Seth  G.S. Medical College, Bombay (Bombay                University)                9. T.N. Medical College, Bombay (Bombay                University)"                                            Emphasis supplied The affidavit  sworn  by  the  Assistant  Secretary  to  the Medical Council  of India  is admirably  vague and reveals a sad state  of affairs.  It is  quite manifest  that when the Secretary to the Medical Council of India addressed a letter dated 26th April, 1976 conveying the recommenda- 182 tions of the Medical Council of India purporting to lay down that after  31st May,  1977 for all teaching appointments to posts  higher   than  Tutor   in  higher  specialities  i.e. Cardiology/ Neurology/Gastro-Enterology / Thoracic Surgery /

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 19  

Neuro-Surgery    /     Plastic    Surgery    /    Paediatric Surgery/Urology, the  candidates must  possess post graduate degree qualifications in the speciality concerned i.e. DM/M. Ch. after  MD/ MS  or other equivalent qualifications as may be approved  by the  Council from time to time. There was no prospectus for  a course  of study  for post-graduation in a super  speciality   nor  were  there  any  institutions  for imparting post  doctoral training in all the subjects. There was  also   a  Note   added  that   the   already   existing qualifications  with  ’two  years  special  training’  in  a recognized training  centre  in  the  speciality  concerned, shall cease  to be  sufficient qualification for appointment to the aforesaid teaching posts from that date. For the sake of completeness,  we think  it  necessary  to  set  out  the aforesaid letter of the Secretary, which runs as follows:           "After  31st   May,   1977,   for   all   teaching           appointments to  posts higher than Tutor in higher           specialities i.e.  Cardiology, Neurology / Gastro-           Enterology /  Thoracic Surgery  / Neuro-Surgery  /           Plastic Surgery  / Paediatric  Surgery /  Urology,           the candidates  must possess  post-graduate degree           qualifications in  the speciality  concerned  i.e.           D.M./M.Ch. after  M.D./M.S.  Or  other  equivalent           qualification as  may be  approved by  the Council           from  time   to  time.  The  existing  alternative           qualifications i.e.  M.D./M.S.  Or  an  equivalent           qualification with two years special training in a           recognised  training   centre  in  the  speciality           concerned,   shall    cease   to   be   sufficient           qualification    for    appointment  to  aforesaid           teaching posts from that date.                Provided that  the requirements of possessing           post  graduate   degree   qualification   in   the           concerned   higher   speciality   shall   not   be           applicable for  higher appointments in the case of           existing teachers  holding regular  teaching posts           whose appointment  was initially made on the basis           of two  years special  training in  the speciality           after the requisite M.D./M.S. "      It  would  be  noticed  that  the  affidavit  does  not disclose the  date or  dates  from  which  the  institutions listed above,  namely, Madras  Medical College, Madras, Post Graduate  Institute   of  Medical   Education  &   Research, Chandigarh, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, 183 New Delhi,  G.B. Pant  Hospital, Delhi  and G.S.V.M. Medical College,  Kanpur   were  recognised   for  imparting   post- graduate/post doctoral  training. Nor  does it  specify  the Universities/Institutions which  have prescribed  a syllabus for the  post-graduate/post doctoral courses leading to post graduation in  DM (Cardiology),  period of study, conduct of examination etc.      It is  not necessary to set out the facts in any detail and it  is sufficient  to give  only the  salient  facts  to elucidate the  points in  controversy. On 1st July, 1983 the State  Government  purported  to  prepare  a  panel  of  all Assistant Professors  of Cardiology  in  Government  Medical Colleges  in   the  State   having  the  requisite  teaching experience under  r. 5  after  obtaining  the  post-graduate qualification as  specified in Annexure II. There existed on that date  four  vacancies  in  the  post  of  Professor  of Cardiology which  occurred on 1st November, 1982, 1st March, 1983, 1st  May, 1983  and in  June 1983.  According  to  the Government, the  teaching experience contemplated by r. 5 of the  Rules   was  the  teaching  experience  gained  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 19  

Assistant  Professor   in  the  concerned  speciality  after obtaining  the   second  post-graduation   degree  in   that speciality. The  Government therefore  included in the penal the names  of Dr. G. Subramanyam, Dr. A. Rajagopala Raju and Dr. Soghra  Begum, Assistant  Professors of  Cardiology, who had as  on the  crucial  date  1st  July,  1983  five  years teaching experience  after obtaining  their  post-graduation degree in  DM (Cardiology) as enjoined by r. 5 read with the first proviso  thereto, and  accordingly by order dated 17th August, 1983  promoted them  to the  post  of  Professor  of Cardiology. Thereupon,  the respondents  Dr. R.  Murali Babu Rao  and   Dr.  G.   Sai  Gopal  moved  the  Andhra  Pradesh Administrative Tribunal  assailing  the  impugned  order  of promotion. The  claim of  the respondent  Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao was  that he  having obtained  his degree  in MD/MRCP in Medicine was  posted as  Assistant Professor  of  Cardiology w.e.f. 18th  January, 1978  and while  continuing to work as such, he  was selected  to undergo a super speciality course in Cardiology  i.e. DM  and was  deputed for that purpose on 18th January,  1980. After completing his DM (Cardiology) in April,  1981,  he  was  posted  as  Assistant  Professor  of Cardiology from 12th June, 1981. Upon that basis, he claimed that apart  from being  seniormost  Assistant  Professor  of Cardiology, he  had five  years of  teaching  experience  in the Department  of  Cardiology  as  Assistant  Professor  of Cardiology as  on 18th January, 1983. According to him, if a panel had  been prepared  on 1st January 1983, he would have been the  seniormost candidate  in  service  with  requisite qualifications for any vacancy from 1st January, 1983 to 1st July,  1983.  He  characterised  the  action  of  the  State Government in 184 the matter  of computation of five years teaching experience after post-graduation  as required  under r.  5 of the Rules only  after   the  second   post-graduation  degree   in  DM (Cardiology) as  being wholly  arbitrary and irrational. The State  Government   in  the   counter  before  the  Tribunal repudiated his  claim and contended inter alia that under r. 5 of  the  Rules,  one  must  possess  five  years  teaching experience in  the speciality  concerned after obtaining the post-graduate qualification in the concerned speciality i.e. after the  second post-graduate  course. It was averred that after  completion   of  his   post-graduate  course   in  DM (Cardiology), the  respondent had  been posted  as Assistant Professor of Cardiology on 12th June, 1981 and thus he would complete the  three years  period as  Assistant Professor of Cardiology after  acquiring his  post-graduate degree  in DM (Cardiology) only  on 11th June, 1984. Tn the normal course. it was said, he would then become qualified for promotion as Professor of Cardiology.      The claim  of the  other representationist  Dr. G.  Sai Gopal was more or less similar. He acquired his degree in MD in Medicine in 1973 and was posted as Assistant Professor of Cardiology in  September 1973.  He obtained his second post- graduate degree  in DM  (Cardiology) on 14th December, 1981. His grievance  is that  he has been discriminated against by the Government.  While he was working as Assistant Professor of Cardiology after obtaining his post-graduate degree in MD in Medicine,  in 1978 he applied for study leave to join the All India  Institute of  Medical  Sciences,  New  Delhi  for undergoing further  studies for  the second  post-graduation degree in  DM (Cardiology).  It was refused and he was asked to resign  from service  while the  Government granted  such leave to  respondent no. 3 Dr. Soghra Begum and therefore he should have  been treated  at par  with her  as if leave had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 19  

been granted,  and thus  he  would  have  completed  his  DM (Cardiology) course in the year 1980 itself. During the year 1979 the  Government however  relented and granted him leave to study  DM course in Cardiology in the All India Institute of Medical  Sciences, New  Delhi where  he completed  his DM (Cardiology) on 13th December, 1981. As he had put in 1 year 6 months  27 days  after  his  post-graduate  degree  in  DM (Cardiology) and  even after  giving credit  for 2  years  4 months and  18 days  i.e. the  second post-graduation course period, he  was short  of the  requisite five years teaching experience and thus the Government considered him ineligible for promotion.      Of  the   three  Assistant   Professors  of  Cardiology promoted as  Professors, the  Government placed  before  the Tribunal a  tabular chart showing that Dr. A Rajagopala Raju had a teaching experience of 185 about 3  years 3 months as on 1st January, 1983 and with the gaining of  teaching  experience  during  the  second  post- graduation degree  of  about  two  years,  he  had  a  total teaching experience  of over  five  years.  As  regards  Dr. Soghra Begum,  it was averred that she already had 3 years 2 months  and   16  days   teaching  experience  as  Assistant Professor of  Cardiology after  obtaining her  post-graduate degree in  MD/MRCP in  Medicine, when the Government deputed her to  undergo further studies for the second post-graduate course in  DM (Cardiology)  and therefore the Government, as in the  case of  Dr. A Rajagopala Raju, decided to count the period when  she was  undergoing  the  second  post-graduate course in DM (Cardiology) towards her teaching experience.      It would  appear from  the tabular  chart that  Dr.  G. Subramanyam who  had also  been  promoted  to  the  post  of Professor of  Cardiology was  not a party to the proceedings before the  Tribunal and  had in  fact been promoted to that post in  November, 1982.  In view  of this,  and as  he  was admittedly senior  to the respondent Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao, he did not press his claim against Dr. G. Sai Gopal.      The appellant  C.H. Umesh Chandra has come up in appeal as the  view expressed by the Tribunal prejudicially affects him. He  obtained his post-graduate degree in MD in Medicine in December,  1975 and his second post-graduate degree in DM (Cardiology) in  April, 1980.  He had  put in  as  Assistant Professor of  Cardiology 3  years and  2 months.  Even after giving credit for 1 year and 9 months i.e. the period of his second  post-graduation   course  in  DM  (Cardiology),  the Government was of the view that he was not eligible. In view of the  fact that  he obtained  his  second  post-graduation degree in  DM (Cardiology)  in  April,  1980,  he  seeks  to support the  stand of  the Government  as he  has  a  better chance for promotion than the others to the promotional post of Professor of Cardiology.      To appreciate the contentions advanced, it is necessary to set  out the  relevant provisions  of the  Andhra Pradesh Medical & Health Service Special Rules 1982, as amended from time to time. They are extracted below:           "3. Clinical  and Non-Clinical  Specialities:  The           Clinical and Non-Clinical Specialities shall be as           shown in Annexure-I to these rules."           "(4). Teaching experience for promotions: 186                (a)  Professors-Clinical,   Non-Clinical  and           Dental: A  Deputy Civil  Surgeon or  an  Assistant           Professor  shall  be  eligible  for  promotion  as           Professor  after   putting  in  a  total  teaching           experience of 5 years in either or both categories

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 19  

         in the concerned specialities.                (b)  Deputy  Civil  Surgeon  (Clinical,  Non-           Clinical, Dental): * * * *                (c) The teaching experience specified in sub-           rules (a)  and (11) above, shall be computed as on           the 1st  January or  the 1st  July of  the year in           which panels for promotions are prepared. "           "(5)  Teaching   experience:  Teaching  experience           specified in rule 4 shall mean teaching experience           in the  speciality concerned  in a Medical College           or an  institute recognised by the Medical Council           of    India    after    obtaining    post-graduate           qualification as specified in Annexure II.                Provided that  the teaching experience during           second post-graduation  in a recognised College or           Institute within  the country  or  abroad  in  the           concerned speciality of those who are:           (i)  Holding teaching appointments; or           (ii) Holding beds under their charges or           (iii)Doing tutorial work;           shall  count   towards  teaching   experience  for           purposes of this rule."           "7. Special  Training: Special  training specified           in these  rules shall  mean the  work done  by  an           Assistant Professor or Deputy Civil Surgeon in the           concerned recognised  unit and exclusively devoted           to the  speciality. Teaching experience during the           special training  period in  the speciality  shall           count towards the training."           "(8) Preparation  of panels:  (1)  The  Government           shall  prepare   a  panel   to  fill-up   all  the           promotional posts included 187           in Class-I  available on  1st January and 1st July           of the  year  based  on  the  eligibility  of  the           persons including  the teaching  experience as  on           1st January and 1st July of the year."           "(9) Qualification:(1) No person shall be eligible           for promotion to the posts specified in column (3)           of  Annexure   II  unless   he/she  possesses  the           qualifications  specified   in  the  corresponding           entry in column (5) thereof.           (2) Preference  shall  be  given  to  persons  who           possess the  qualifications specified  in item (a)           over those  who possess the qualifications in item           (b) of  Column (5) of Annexure II for the posts of           Professors and  Deputy Civil Surgeons belonging to           the specialities specified in Annexure III."                         ANNEXURE II         (NON-CLINICAL SPECIALITIES) See Rules 5 & 9 "S. Name of     Post        Qualifications    Degrees No. Speciality (1) (2)         (3)         (4)               (5) 17  Cardiology  Professor/  Must possess one  (a) D.M                 Dy. Civil   of the following   (cardiology)                 Surgeon     post-graduate    b)M.D./M.R.C.P.                             qualifications in  in                             the concerned      Medicine                             speciality from    with 2                             a recognised       years                             University/Board/  training                             Body.              in                                                Cardiology."      The entire  controversy is  due to  the failure  of the State  Government  to  give  the  benefit  of  the  teaching

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 19  

experience  gained   by  Assistant   Professors  after  they obtained their  post-graduate degree in MD/ MRCP in Medicine under cl.  (b) of  column 5 in serial no. 17 of Annexure II. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the State Government in  the  counter  revealed  that  there  was  correspondence between the  Directorate of Medical & Health Department with Secretary to  the Medical & Health Department since the year 1981 for  deletion of the alternate qualification prescribed in cl. (b) of column 5 in serial no. 17 188 of Annexure  II, namely MD/MRCP in Medicine, as amended from A time  to time,  for all teaching appointments in the super specialities, as  per the  recommendations  of  the  Medical Council of  India. On the recommendation of the Directorate, it was  said that the State Government had decided to delete the alternate  qualification prescribed in r. 5 of the Rules for eligibility  to the  higher post of Professor in a super speciality, and  had sent  a draft  amendment to the Special Rules for  concurrence to  the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and  the same was awaited. The recommendations of the Indian  Medical Council  had not  by then  i.e. till the hearing before  the Tribunal,  been translated  into action. The judgment  of  the  Tribunal  however  reveals  that  the alternate qualification in cl. (b) of column 5 in serial no. 17 of  Annexure II  i.e. MD/MRCP  in Medicine with two years training in  Cardiology stood  deleted w.e.f. 12th December, 1983. On  the crucial  date however  i.e. On 1st July, 1983, when  the   impugned  panel   was  prepared,  the  alternate qualification in cl. (b) was still there.      The contention  on behalf  of the  State Government and the other  appellants before us, as was before the Tribunal, is that  the rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution, are subject to the recommendations made by the Medical Council  of India  which is  invested with statutory power under  s. 19A  of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 insofar as  they relate to coordination and determination of standards  for   medical  education  and  in  particular  to prescription of  qualifications for  appointment to teaching posts in higher specialities. It is said that the directions of the  Council, as  conveyed by the Secretary by his letter dated 26th  April, 1976  were mandatory, notwithstanding any provision to  the contrary  contained in  the Andhra Pradesh Medical &  Health  Service  Special  Rules,  1982  and  must therefore prevail  and were  binding on  the Government. The Government duly  considered the  claims of  the  respondents aforesaid and came to the decision that they were ineligible for  promotion  to  the  post  of  Professor  of  Cardiology inasmuch as  they did  not possess  the requisite five years teaching  experience   in  the  speciality  concerned  after obtaining their  post-graduation  qualification  within  the meaning of  r. 5  of the  Rules i.e.  second post-graduation degree in  DM (Cardiology).  The further contention is that, at any rate the alternate qualification in cl. (b) of column 5 in  serial no.  17 of  Annexure  II,  namely,  MD/MRCP  in Medicine with  two years training in Cardiology, having been deleted by  GOMS No. 789, Medical & Health Department, dated 12th December, 1983, it was not necessary for the Government to comply with the direction made by the Tribunal to draw up a panel  of the eligible candidates afresh under r. 8 of the Rules. The contention, 189 in  the   alternative,  was  that  the  Tribunal  failed  to appreciate that  the teaching experience gained by Assistant Professors of  Cardiology before  obtaining the second post- graduate degree  in the speciality concerned. i.e. after the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 19  

post-graduate degree  in MD/MRCP  in Medicine,  could not be taken into consideration inasmuch as under r.9(2) preference has to  be given  to persons  who possess the qualifications specified  in   cl.  (a)   over  those   who   possess   the qualifications  specified   in  cl.  (b)  for  the  post  of Professor belonging  to the speciality specified therein and therefore  it  was  not  justified  in  quashing  the  panel prepared by  the State Government under r. 8. We are afraid, these contentions cannot prevail.      The fallacy underlying the arguments is obvious. Rule 4 in  terms  speaks  of  the  eligibility  of  such  class  of Assistant Professors of Cardiology for promotion to the post of Professor  of Cardiology  who possess five years teaching experience. The  expression teaching  experience’ as defined in r.  5 speaks  of ’teaching  experience in  the speciality concerned in a medical college or an institute recognised by the Medical  Council of  India after obtaining post-graduate qualification as  specified in  Annexure II’. The words used are ’after  obtaining postgraduate  qualification’; it  does not speak  of the second post-graduate qualification. Rule 5 therefore takes in both the qualifications specified in cls. (a) and  (b) of  column 5  in serial  no 17  of Annexure II, namely, (a) DM (Cardiology) (b) MD/MRCP in Medicine with two years training  in Cardiology. On the crucial date 1st July, 1983, cl.  (b) was  very much  there and  the Government was bound to  consider the  claims of  the aforesaid respondents like other  officers belonging  to that class before drawing up a  panel  under  r.  8.  There  is  no  warrant  for  the submission that  since under  r. 9(2) an Assistant Professor with the  requisite five  years  teaching  experience  after obtaining his second post-graduate degree in DM (Cardiology) would   have    preferential   claim   over   those   having qualification mentioned in cl. (b) i.e. MD/ MRCP in Medicine with two  years training in Cardiology, the State Government was entitled  to ignore  the  claims  of  the  latter  class altogether. On  its plain construction, r. 9(2) is a rule of preference and  has therefore  to be applied at the stage of making appointments  to the  post of Professor of Cardiology and not  while drawing up a panel under r. 8. The Government was obviously  misled by  the wrongful  assumption (i)  that since the  alternate qualification in cl. (b) of column 5 in serial no.  17 of  Annexure II  had been deleted by GOMS No. 789 dated  12th December,  1983, it was not necessary for it to consider  the claims  of the  aforesaid  respondents  and others similarly  situate in  drawing up  a list of eligible Assistant Professors of Cardiology to fill up 190 the promotional  post of  Professor of  Cardiology, and (ii) that such  A officers  were rendered ineligible by reason of r. 9(2)  and therefore  their claims need not be considered. The Tribunal  was therefore  justified, in  our opinion,  in quashing the impugned panel prepared by the State Government under r.  8 of  the Rules and in directing the Government to prepare a  penal afresh  after considering the claims of all Assistant Professors  of Cardiology with five years teaching experience  after   their  post-graduation   in  MD/MRCP  in medicine with two years training in Cardiology.      There is  no substance  whatever in the contention that the alternate  qualification in  cl. (b)  being in  conflict with the  recommendation of  the Medical  Council of  India, must be  deemed to have been repealed by implication and was non-set w.e.f.  31st May,  1977. The Government had no doubt before it  the recommendations of the Council as conveyed by the letter  of the  Secretary dated  26th April,  1976  that after 31st  May, 1977,  for all  teaching posts  higher than

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 19  

Tutor in  higher  specialities  i.e.  Cardiology  /Neurology /Gastro-Enterology/ Thoracic  Surgery/ Neuro Surgery/Plastic Surgery/Paediatric Surgery/  Urology,  the  candidates  must possess the  post-graduate qualification  in the  speciality concerned i.e.  DM/M.Ch. after  MD/MS  or  other  equivalent qualification, as  may be  approved by the Council from time to time.  The letter  also went  on to say that the existing qualification MD/MS  or an equivalent qualification with two years special  training in  a recognised  training centre in the speciality  concerned,  shall  cease  to  be  sufficient qualification for  appointment  to  the  aforesaid  teaching posts from that date. Nevertheless, the Government failed to appreciate that  the recommendation which was later approved of by  the Government  of India and acquired the status of a regulation, was only recommendatory and could not override a rule  framed   under  the   proviso  to   Art.  309  of  the Constitution. The  panel  had  to  be  drawn  by  the  State Government  strictly   in  conformity   with  the  rules  of recruitment made  under the  proviso to  Art. 309 and not on the basis of the recommendations of the Council.      As is  manifest from  the affidavit filed by the Indian Medical Council,  it is  only a  recommendatory  body.  This Court has  in a  series of  decisions  defined  the  precise functions and  duties of  the Medical  Council of India. The Indian Medical  Council constituted under s. 3 of the Act is an expert  body intended  and meant  to control  the minimum standards  of   medical  education  and  to  regulate  their observance. We  may only  cite the  case of  State of Madhya Pradesh v.  Km. Nivedita  Jain. [1981]  4 SCC  296 where the Court had to consider the effect of 191 the Regulations  framed  by  the  Medical  Council  and  the various executive  orders issued  by the  State  Government. Analysing the various provisions of the Act in depth, it was observed as follows:           "An analysis  of the  various sections  of the Act           indicate that  the main  purpose of  the Act is to           establish Medical Council of India, to provide for           its constitution,  composition and  its  functions           and  the  main  function  of  the  Council  is  to           maintain the  medical register  of  India  and  to           maintain a  proper standard  of medical  education           and medical  ethics and  professional conduct  for           medical  practitioners.  The  scheme  of  the  act           appears to be that the Medical Council of India is           to be set up in the manner provided in the Act and           the Medical Council will maintain a proper medical           register,  will  prescribe  minimum  standards  of           medical education required for granting recognised           medical  qualifications,   will   also   prescribe           standards of  post graduate  medical education and           will   further    regulate   the    standards   of           professional conduct  and etiquette  and  code  of           ethics for medical practitioners."                                            Emphasis supplied A fortiori,  the recommendations  made by the Council or the Regulations framed  by it  are only  recommendatory and  not mandatory.  It   is  not   for  the   Council  to  prescribe qualifications  for  recruitment  to  posts  of  Professors, Readers and Lecturers. It can only lay down broad guidelines therefor.  Such   qualifications  have   necessarily  to  be prescribed by the framing of Rules under the proviso to Art. 309. Right  to be considered for promotion is a condition of service and  it can only be regulated by a rule framed under the proviso to Art. 309.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 19  

    The Medical  Council in  its affidavit  has itself said that it  only prescribes  broad guidelines  for training  in post-graduate/post  doctoral   courses  leading   to   post- graduation in  DM (Cardiology),  period of study, conduct of examinations etc. It goes further and accepts that there are no special  guidelines laid  down for Cardiology and asserts that some  universities/institutions might  have  prescribed the syllabus.  It has  listed five  institutions  which  are imparting post  doctoral training  in Cardiology. Such being the legal  position, the  contention of the State Government and the  other appellants  that the  recommendations of  the Medical Council  as conveyed  by the letter of the Secretary dated 26th  April, 1976  rendering Assistant  Professors  of Cardiology  having  the  alternate  qualification  of  post- graduate  degree  in  MD/MRCP  in  Medicine  ineligible  for Promotion to the post of Professor of Cardio- 192 logy even  though they had the requisite five years teaching experience,  appears   to   be   wholly   misconceived   and unwarranted. In  support of  the contention, learned counsel appearing for  the State Government and the other appellants relied upon the following observations made by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. S.B. Kohli & Anr. [1973] 3 SCR 117:           "Before the  growth of  specialised qualifications           Surgeons obtaining the F.R.C.S. in general surgery           used  to  specialise  in  orthopaedics  and  other           specialities  either   by  doing   a  diploma   in           orthopaedics or simply by practice and experience.           The regulations  framed  by  the  Medical  Council           require that  in addition to the general F.R.C.S.,           a surgeon  must have  a  diploma  in  orthopaedics           before he  could be  appointed a Professor, Reader           or Lecturer  in orthopaedics.  That regulation has           been accepted  by the  Government. This  gives  an           indication of  what is  considered a  postgraduate           degree in  the concerned speciality. Therefore, in           the present  case, a  mere degree  of F.R.C.S.  as           such  cannot  be  deemed  to  be  a  post-graduate           qualification  in   the  concerned  speciality  of           orthopaedics. To  hold otherwise would mean that a           person who has the qualification of F.R.C.S. could           be deemed  to be  specialised in  Tuberculosis and           orthopaedics, although  he is also a specialist in           general surgery.  Therefore, the second Respondent           does  not  hold  a  post-graduate  degree  in  the           concerned speciality,  orthopaedics and  as  such,           his promotion  to  the  post  of  a  Professor  in           orthopaedics was  illegal and  against the Central           Health Service Rules"      We fail  to see  the relevance of these observations to the facts of the present case. In Kohli’s case, the question turned on  the construction  of the  phrase ’a post-graduate degree in  the concerned  speciality’ in  items 2  and 3  of Annexure II  of the  Second Schedule  of the  Central Health Service  Rules,   1963.  The   question   that   arose   for consideration was whether the second respondent in that case who was  FRCS (General Surgery) of the Edinburgh University, had a  post-graduate degree  in the concerned speciality and was eligible  for promotion  to the  post  of  Professor  of orthopaedics Surgery  in the  Maulana Azad  Medical College, New Delhi.  It was  conceded before the High Court on behalf of the  Central Government  that the  amendments made in the Central Health Service Rules were intended to give effect to the Regulations  framed by  the Indian  Medical Council. The Court held that the various

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 19  

193 entries in  Annexure II  of the  Second Schedule  had to  be interpreted in  a reasonable manner and pointed out that the degree in FRCS was in General Surgery. The amended rule made by the  Central Government  was to  implement the Regulation framed by the Indian Medical Council that in addition to the General FRCS,  a Surgeon must have a diploma in orthopaedics before he could be appointed a Professor, Reader or Lecturer in orthopaedics  In that  context, the  Court held  that the Central Government having accepted the recommendation of the Council and  framed a  rule, a  mere degree  of FRCS as such could not  be deemed  to be a post-graduate qualification in the concerned speciality, orthopaedics. In the present case, we  are   concerned  with  the  meaning  of  the  expression ’teaching experience’ occurring in r.5 of the Rules and with the  class  of  officers  who  after  their  appointment  as Assistant Professors of Cardiology, on having obtained post- graduate degree  in MD  MRCP, have been teaching the subject Cardiology  for   years  together.   Indeed,  the  alternate qualification specified in cl. (b) of column 5 in serial no. 17 of  Annexure II takes in this class of officers and makes them eligible  under r.  5. We  have  already  repelled  the contention that the alternate qualification in cl. (b) being in conflict  with the  recommendation of the Council must be deemed to have been repealed by implication w.e.f. 31st May, 1977 or  rendered non-est  as from that date. On the crucial date 1st  July,  1983,  cl  (b)  was  still  there  and  the Government was  therefore bound  to consider  the claims  of such officers before drawing up a panel under r. 8..      Faced with  this difficulty,  learned counsel appearing for  the   State  Government   and  the   other   appellants strenuously contended  before us  that the  respondents i.e. Assistant  Professors   of  Cardiology  with  the  requisite teaching experience  of five  years  after  obtaining  their postgraduate degree  in MD/MRCP  in Medicine  did  not  come within the  purview of  cl. (b) of column S in serial no. 17 of Annexure  II. Emphasis  was laid  on the  words ’with two years training in Cardiology’ and it was submitted that none of the  respondents had  the requisite training. We enquired from the  learned  counsel  if  there  was  any  institution imparting such  training in  Cardiology but they were unable to throw  any light  on the subject. The expression ’special training’ is  defined in  r. 7  to mean  the work done by an Assistant Professor  in the  concerned recognised  unit  and exclusively devoted  to the  speciality. The  question  then arises  for  the  applicability  of  r.  7.  There  are  two conditions to  be fulfilled,  firstly, there  must exist  an institution set up either by the Medical Council of India or by the  Government or  Universities exclusively  devoted  to imparting teaching  in different  courses of  Cardiology and secondly, such institution should have been recog- 194 nised by the Government. There is no such material on record to establish  that there  is any such recognised unit either in the  State of Andhra Pradesh or elsewhere. That apart, we fail to  appreciate the reason why the Associate Professors, Readers, Assistant  Professors of  Cardiology  teaching  the subject  Cardiology   in  the  Medical  Colleges  for  years together, should  not be  regarded as persons having special training in  Cardiology within  the meaning  of cl.  (b)  of column 5  in serial no. 17 Annexure II. Any other view would lead to a very anomalous situation .      It would  be a  travesty of  justice  if  the  officers belonging   to    the   class    like    the    respondents- representationists Dr.  R. Murali  Babu Rao  and  Dr.  G.Sai

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 19  

Gopal, namely,  Assistant Professors of Cardiology with five years teaching  experience after their post-graduation in MD MRCP in  Medicine as  on 1st July, 1983, were not empanelled by the  State Government  under r. 8 to fill up vacancies in the post  of  Professor  of  Cardiology,  even  though  they possessed the  requisite qualifications  under r.  5 of  the Rules.  It   must   be   remembered   that   the   alternate qualification in  cl. (b),  namely, MD MRCP in Medicine with two years  training in Cardiology was still there and it was not open to the Government to ignore the same merely because it was  in conflict  with the  recommendation of the Medical Council of India. as conveyed in the letter of the Secretary dated 26th April, 1976.      In the  world as  a whole  today, particularly  in  the developed countries,  both the  health  and  the  wealth  of mankind is better than it was. Even in the developing world, the health  conditions of  many  communities  have  improved considerably in recent decades. For the developing countries as a whole, life expectancy at birth increased from 32 years before the Second World War, to about 49 years in the 1960s, compared with  about 70 years for the industrial world. With the  conquest   of  tuberculosis   and  other   infectitious diseases, disorders  of  the  blood  vessels,  hypertension, ischemia,  acute  myocardial  infraction,  arteriosclerosis, acute heart failure etc. are the chief causes of death in at least half  of population,  and perhaps  a quarter  as  many deaths  from   cancer.  New  physiological  and  biophysical methods of  study, together  with post  war developments  in surgery and  open heart  surgery,  have  revolutionised  the investigation and management of heart disease in the Western World. Our country is not lagging behind and during the last few decades  has seen  the emergence  of the  new  class  of specialised   physicians    dealing   with    cardiovascular disorders, known  as Cardiologists,  for the  management and treatment of patients suffering from heart diseases. 195      From time  to time,  a personality  seintillates across the medical  firmament who dazzles all beholders. Few people of his  generation have  surpassed the  eminence of Dr. S.K. Mukerji, MD/MRCP  (Lond.), FRCP  (Lond.), Emeritus Professor of Medicine,  Medical College,  Indore who  perhaps today is the leading Physician and Cardiologist in the country and at whose feet  many Physicians  and Cardiologists have attained great distinction.  He  has  had  a  remarkable  ability  to objectify an  important clinical  finding and  to  cite  all relevant literature  without disquisting the patient. Indeed his clinical  analysis usually  gained  the  confidence  and respect of  his patient  in a  most reassuring  manner.  His originality in selecting clinical problems and investigating them by  the  available  physiological  methods,  especially disorders of  the heart and circulation, are familiar to the entire medical  world. He  truly depicts the characteristics of a  thoughtful physician excelled in the care of the sick, as delineated  by T.  R. Harrison  . renowned  physician and author of  the standard  text book  ’Principles of  Internal Medicine’ in his preface in these words:           "No greater opportunity or obligation can fall the           lot of  a human  being than  to be a physician. In           the care  of  the  suffering  he  needs  technical           skill,    scientific    knowledge,    and    human           understanding. He  who uses  these  with  courage,           humality, and wisdom will provide a unique service           for his  fellow man  and will  build  an  enduring           edifice of character within himself. The physician           should ask  of his  destiny no more than this, and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 19  

         he should be content with no less."      Another outstanding personality whose name comes to our mind is  that of  Dr.P.N. Laha,  MD,  Double  MRCP  (Lond.), Emeritus Professor of Medicine, Medical College, Gwalior who has taught many of the leading Cardiologists in the country. A delightful, vivacious, passionate physician, he stimulates everyone with  whom he  comes contact  and he  has placed an indelible stamp  on the medical events of his days. His many illuminating articles  on different  branches of  Cardiology appear  in   the  authoritative   text-book  ’Prineiples  of Medicine’, edited by Dr. Rustom J. Vakil who, along with Dr. (Col.) K.K. Datey, were two of the foremost Cardiologists in the country.  Two  of  the  physicians  who  attained  great eminence in  the field of Cardiology were the late Dr. Sujoy B. Roy,  Head of  the Department  of Cardiology,  All  India Institute of  Medical Sciences,  New Delhi  and the late Dr. K.L. Wig,  Professor of  Medicine, Director,  Post  Graduate Institute of  Medical Eduction  and Research, Chandigarh and later Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi in their 196 time. Other  equally eminent  Cardiologists who have brought honour to  the country are Dr. P.C. Dhanda, MD/MRCP, Head of the Department  of Medicine,  Maulana Azad  Medical College, New  Delhi,   Dr.  (Lt.  Col.)  K.L.  Chopra,  Professor  of Cardiology, Medical  College, Poona.  Advisor to  the  Armed Forces,  Head  of  the  Cardiology  Department,  Mool  Chand Khairati Ram  Hospital, President Heart Care Foundation, Dr. Padmavati, Professor  & Head  of the  Cardiology Department, G.B. Pant  Hospital, President,  All India Heart Foundation, Dr. M.L.  Bhatia, Head  of the  Cardiology  Department,  All India  Institute  of  Medical  Sciences,  Dr.  R.K.  Caroli, Professor  of   Cardiology  and   Head  of   the  Cardiology Department,  Dr.   Ram  Manohar  Lohia  Hospital,  Dr.  S.C. Manchanda, Professor  of Cardiology,  All India Institute of Medical Sciences,  Dr. B.K.  Goyal,  Visiting  Professor  of Cardiology in different Medical Colleges in Bombay, Dr. (Lt. Col.)  K.   K.  Malhotra,   eminent  Physician   and  Senior Specialist and  Consultant  (Cardiology),  Dr.  Ram  Manohar Lohia Hospital,  Dr. P.D. Nigam, Professor of Cardiology and Head of  the Department, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Dr. M. Khalilullah,  Director,  G.B.  Pant  Hospital,  Dr.  N.S. Dixit, Head  of the  Cardiology Department,  Batra Hospital, Dr. K.  Banerji, MD, Professor of Medicine, Medical college, Jodhpur, Dr.  C.E. Bhandari,  Professor of Medicine, Medical College,  Jabalpur,   Dr.  V.G.   Nivasarkar,  Professor  of Medicine,  Medical  College,  Gwalior,  Dr.  R.K.  Sen,  Sr. Consultant, B.L.  Kapur Hospital,  New Delhi,  a  well-known Physician  and  Cardiologist,  Dr.  S.K.  Minocha,  MD.  Sr. Physician &  Cardiologist, Dr.  Ram Manohar  Lohia  Hospital etc. We  would  be  surprised  if  many  of  these  renowned Cardiologists who are MD, MRCP (Lond.) are not examiners for DM (Cardiology).  Indeed, many of their students after doing their MD  in Medicine and after their post-graduation go for further  studies   for  the  second  post-graduation  in  DM (Cardiology) under their direction.      We have  no doubt  in our mind that the Medical Council of India  with  the  best  of  intentions  due  to  fall  in standards of  education felt  it  necessary  in  the  public interest to  prescribe second  post-graduation in  a  super- speciality  i.e.   DM  (Cardiology)   to  be   an  essential qualification for  the  promotional  post  of  Professor  of Cardiology. However, it must not be forgotten that there are many  distinguished   Physicians  with   specialisation   in Cardiology,  working  as  Professors  of  Medicine  teaching

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 19  

students in different branches of Cardiology as a subject in various  medical   colleges  throughout  the  country  whose services are frequently called in as Consultants in cases of emergency.  There  are  also  many  distinguished  Assistant Professors/Readers/Associate Professors  of Medicine in such medical colleges in different States teaching Cardio- 197 logy as  a subject  who have gained sufficient expertise and knowledge in  different branches  of Cardiology. It would be rather unfortunate  if such  Assistant Professors /Readers / Associate Professors  of Medicine  merely because  they  are MD/MRCP in  Medicine were  considered to  be ineligible  for appointment to  the post  of Professor  of  Cardiology  even though they  may have  the requisite  teaching experience in many branches  of Cardiology  for the last 15 to 20 years in medical colleges.  In view  of this,  the  expression  ’five years teaching experience’ occurring in r. 5 of the Rules as well as  the phrase  ’with two years training in Cardiology’ in cl.  (b) of  column 5  in serial no. 17 of Annexure II of the  Rules   must,  in   our  opinion,   receive  a  liberal construction.  We   are  inclined   to  the  view  that  the experience  gained   by  them  while  teaching  students  in different  branches  of  Cardiology  should  be  treated  as sufficient to  meet the requirements of r. 5 of the Rules as well as  of cl.  (b). We  hope and  trust that  the  Medical Council  of   India,  Union   Government   and   the   State Governments, so also the State Medical Councils would give a second thought  to the  problem and try to evolve a solution to the  problem by  which the  right of  such persons  to be considered  for  promotion  to  the  post  of  Professor  of Cardiology can  be kept preserved, without allowing any fall in the standards of further education.      For the  reasons stated,  the appeals  as well  as  the connected  special   leave  petitions   must  fail  and  are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. S.L.                     Appeals & Petitions dismissed. 198